Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Great Yarmouth Water Bill [Lords],

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords],

Norwich Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

DISTRIBUTION, NORTH WALES.

Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the
dissatisfaction which now exists with regard to the distribution of coal in the North Wales area, it would be possible to provide for representation of the consumers' interests on the District Coal and Coke Supplies Committee at Wrexham, seeing that at present constituted the entire body, with one exception, is interested in collieries, and that the addition of one consumer from each county in the area would be a satisfaction to the whole community?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): In view of the decontrol of the inland distribution of coal, the District Coal and Coke Supplies Committee—including the committee for North Wales—have been re-constituted to cover the representation of coalowners, coal factors, coal merchants, and consumers. As the committees are executive bodies, it is not considered desirable to increase their membership.

INLAND DISTRIBUTION, DE-CONTROL.

Colonel NEWMAN: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether control, except as regards price, of household and industrial coal has now come to an end; whether users of coal, whether for household or industrial purposes, will no longer be obliged to accept seaborne or rail-borne coal of the quality
and quantity decided on by the Coal Controller, but will be allowed to make their own arrangements; and will he say what sum will be saved annually by the abolition of the Coal Controller's Department?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Departmental control of the inland distribution of coal has been terminated. The maximum price at the pit-head continues to be fixed under the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, 1915, but the orders regulating intermediate and public prices have been suspended. Consumers will be free to make their own arrangements regarding supplies of coal, subject only to the directions given to collieries by the District Coal and Coke Supplies Committees. It should be borne in mind that the work of these committees will be helped if consumers will continue to use for the time being their present channels of supply. It is not proposed to abolish the Coal Mines Department, but, as a result of the step now taken, considerable economies will be effected, including the cost of the contributions to local authorities in connection with the administration of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, which have amounted to £400,000 per annum.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it the case that coal consumers will not be obliged to accept sea-borne coal in future?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is not the question on the Paper. It all depends on how far it is possible to get coal in any other way.

EXPORTS TO SOUTH AMERICA.

Mr. HOUSTON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to prohibit the export of coal from this country to Argentina and other South American countries; and, if not, can he state the monthly quantities of coal which the Government will permit to be exported to Argentina and other South American countries, giving the respective amounts for each South American country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not proposed to prohibit the export of coal from this country to South America. The quantity expected to be available for export to South America is approximately 80,000
tons per month, and directions have been given that coal may be released for export to South America to this extent from the South Wales district. It is not considered feasible to sub-divide this quota in advance among the several importing countries in South America. The distribution of the estimated quantity is to be worked out by the local coal and coke supplies committee from time to time, having regard to the necessarily varying conditions of business.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is not my hon. Friend aware of the great importance of supplying Argentina with coal, with a view to obtaining supplies of wheat from that country in exchange?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am fully aware of that.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why is this export of 80,000 tons being confined to South Wales? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that wheat comes to other ports besides those in South Wales, and that this will mean extra freight on ships going out in ballast?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: South Wales ports are the main ports from which coal goes out to South American ports.

BUNKER SUPPLY, GLASGOW.

Mr. HOUSTON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is by his instructions that the Coal Controller has limited the shipment of bunker coal in Glasgow to about 500 tons for large ocean steamers when these steamers subsequently call at Liverpool to complete loading, entailing the procuring of bunker coal for the voyage at Liverpool, at an increased price of 45s. per ton over the Glasgow price, thereby greatly increasing the expenses of the voyage to South America and necessitating higher homeward freights on foodstuffs than if the whole of the bunker coal was procurable at Glasgow; and whether he will give instructions to the Coal Controller that steamers may obtain their entire bunkers at Glasgow?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The position remains as stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow on the 1st March. The shortage of coal for inland consumption in Scotland is still such that full bunkers even for regular liners and
other vessels loading full cargoes outwards from Glasgow can only be supplied with difficulty. If home supplies are to be maintained it is essential to restrict the quantity of bunkers to be supplied to vessels which in the course of their voyage are about to call at Liverpool, where adequate supplies of South Wales coal are available.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is my hon. Friend not aware that this order involves an increase of £3,000 or £4,000 in the cost of a ship's voyage?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite aware it is very inconvenient, but I do not know the exact cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

HOME-KILLED MEAT (DISTRIBUTION).

Colonel NEWMAN: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any means are taken to allocate fairly among different purveyors of butchers' meat what home-killed beef and mutton is available; and is he aware that in the meat departments of leading stores of the West End of London no fresh meat is available, and customers have for some time past been forced to accept frozen meat of inferior quality, while in Ireland fresh meat can be obtained without limit?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The system under which retailers receive their allocation of home-killed meat is based on the number of customers registered with them in October, 1919. The Food Controller is not aware of any case in which no fresh meat was available for a retailer, as there has been no difficulty for some time past in supplying London retailers with the amount of home-killed meat to which they are entitled. Ample supplies of frozen meat of excellent quality are available, and the Food Controller cannot agree that there is any compulsion to accept inferior frozen meat. There is no restriction on the amount of home-killed meat which can be obtained by individual consumers in Ireland, as the Food Controller's system of distribution has never been in operation in that country.

SUGAR.

Mr. DOYLE: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the cause of the increasing price of sugar; if any attempt has been made to corner the supply in the West Indies or elsewhere; and what effort is being made to secure a greater supply of beet sugar from Germany and Austria in part settlement of the indemnity?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. The increasing price of sugar is mainly due to the world's shortage in supply, brought about by lowered production and increased consumption, particularly in America. I am not quite clear as to the exact meaning attached by the hon. Member to the word "corner." There is no doubt that an attempt has been made by sugar producers in some parts of the world to obtain as high a price as possible for their produce. As regards the last part of the question, the present price of sugar offers every inducement to producers in Germany to increase their output, but so long as the amount of sugar produced is no greater than the requirements of that country, no export can be expected. Austria is now a sugar-importing country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the hon. Member aware that a good deal of our sugar before the war came from the Ukraine, and will he use his influence with the Government to hasten supplies from there?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My impression is that the imports into this country of sugar from Russia altogether were never very large.

Mr. PALMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 6000 tons of sugar have recently been exported from this country? Was that with the consent of the Food Controller?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not aware of that.

ARGENTINE WHEAT.

Mr. HOUSTON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to the effect that the Argentine Government intend prohibiting the export of wheat from Argentina; and, if this prohibition is enforced, can he state from which countries it is intended to draw the supplies of wheat we require in this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Argentine Government introduced a Bill on 1st June imposing an additional export duty of five dollars per 100 kilogrammes on wheat and flour, the proceeds to be used for the purpose of lowering the price of bread in the Argentine. The Bill does not provide for prohibition of export, but it authorises the Government to expropriate when necessary wheat and flour as articles of public utility.
The question of safeguarding our wheat supplies is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is my hon. Friend not aware that on Friday last the Argentine Government prohibited the export of grain. In view of the shortage of grain in all foreign countries, and the vital necessity of increasing our home production, can he say what the Government intend to do?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say what the Government intend to do, but the explanation which I got from the Wheat Commission recently was that prohibition had not yet been made, and the Bill introduced with regard to that had not yet been passed.

Sir R. COOPER: Have not the Government made large purchases of wheat in the Argentine, and will they take steps to see that no law is passed in that country to prevent that wheat coming to this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to see notice of that question on the Paper.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the Government take steps to prohibit the export of coal to the Argentine, if we cannot get wheat from there?

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Captain BOWYER: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can yet make any statement with regard to the abolition of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic); whether he is aware that the Prime Minister gave a promise in 1918 that restrictions should be done away with at an early date; that in July, 1919, the early dissolution of the Board was promised; whether he will state what steps will be taken in the
matter and how soon the abolition of the Board may be expected; and whether he will, as a first instalment, remove entirely the restrictions on working men's, as well as on all other, clubs?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend should address this question to the Leader of the House.

LIQUID FUEL.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position of this country so far as the supply of fuel for internal combustion engines is concerned; whether there exists now or is likely to exist a grave shortage of liquid fuel; and what steps the Government are taking to meet such a situation and, if possible, to prevent its arising by the opening of fresh sources of supply and by encouraging the manufacture and use of alternative fuel, and with what prospects of success?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no reason to think that there is any immediate danger of a shortage of liquid motor fuel in this country. As regards the latter part of the question, my Noble Friend will have seen from the recent annual report of the Fuel Research Board that the whole question of the production and use of fuel in its widest sense is being systematically investigated by that Board.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great shortage of liquid fuel for internal combustion engines, and that in some parts of the country it is almost impossible to get it?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I shall be very glad if my Noble Friend can give me information on that subject to pass it on to the proper quarters.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FEATHERS (IMPORTS).

Mr. GILBERT: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total value of bird feathers imported into the United Kingdom during last year; and if he will state what was the value of ostrich feathers out of the total, and the value of the same received from India and the British Dominions and Colonies?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The total value of feathers and down registered as imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1919, was £1,519,448. Of this amount, £961,777 represented the value of undressed ostrich feathers, including £959,322 imported from British Dominions and Colonies, none having come from India. The value of other kinds of feathers, including down, imported from India, was £100, and that from British Dominions and Colonies, £91,655.

IMPORT AND EXPORT LICENCES.

Mr. GILBERT: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether import and export licences are still required by manufacturers and merchants for all kinds of goods and for all countries; and, if not, if he will state what goods and what countries are exempt from this restriction to trade?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No licences are required for any imports into the United Kingdom other than arms, ammunition, opium, and cocaine. All exports from the United Kingdom to Soviet Russia are still subject to licences, and licences are required for export to all other countries of the limited number of commodities specified in the list of export prohibited goods issued fortnightly by the Board of Trade, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY GUARDS AND PORTERS (PENSIONS)

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether many old railway servants, including guards and porters, who after 40 years' service are only entitled to pensions which do not amount to 12s. a week, have reached the age of 65 years, are liable to be retired on this small pension; and whether he can, in view of the services they have rendered to the public, take any action to try and procure for these old railway employees a more adequate pension?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a somewhat similar question by the hon. Member for the New Forest and Christchurch Division (Mr. Perkins) on the 4th June.

LEVEL RAILWAY CROSSINGS.

Viscount CURZON: 14.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the public inconvenience, danger, and loss of time caused by existing level crossings over public highways; and whether he is taking steps to ensure that all proposals which are put forward in railway bills for making additional level crossings are being carefully examined and reported on by the Roads Department of his Ministry?

Sir E. GEDDES: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. STEWART: Will the right hon. Gentleman try and get the railway companies to carry out the promises they made before the War with regard to level crossings?

Sir E. GEDDES: I shall be glad to go into the matter if my right hon. Friend will send me particulars of any cases.

SUNDAY SCHOOL EXCURSIONS.

Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 15.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the immediate restoration of pre-War special facilities to the annual excursions of Sunday schools, seeing that otherwise the only outing enjoyed by a large number of children, especially town-dwelling children, will have again to be abandoned, these facilities to include special trains and reduced fares both to scholars, who in Wales include a number of adults as well as children, and their teachers?

Sir E. GEDDES: The railway companies are granting (in so far as their traffic position permits) reduced fare facilities in connection with the annual day outings for recognised school treats, subject to certain conditions of which I am sending a copy to the hon. and gallant Member. It may not be possible to meet all applications for special trains, and I regret that it is not possible to extend the concession of cheap fares to parties of adults.

Mr. INSKIP: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only one adult is allowed to every 12 children at the reduced fare, and that this makes it impossible for children to be properly controlled, and, therefore, for many of these Sunday-school excursions to be carried out? Could not at least two adults be allowed to every 12 children?

Sir E. GEDDES: I think my hon. and learned Friend is misinformed. It is 10 per cent. of adults, and, so far as I am advised one adult to 10 children should prove sufficient.

Mr. INSKIP: Has the right hon. Gentleman any experience of Sunday-school treats?

Sir E. GEDDES: Many years ago.

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: 18.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can see his way to reconsider his decision to grant reduced railway fares to only 10 per cent. of adults accompanying Sunday-school children on their annual day excursion trip to the seaside, and whether he is aware that this percentage of adults is inadequate to superintend the safety of the children?

Sir E. GEDDES: Excursion tickets are suspended, and in the circumstances I regret that I see no justification for making any alteration in the conditions laid down in regard to the number of adults who may travel at reduced fares when they accompany Sunday school children on their annual outing. I have no reason to suppose that a greater proportion of adults are in ordinary circumstances required to take proper care of the children.

Mr. LEWIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this 10 per cent. will mean that tens of thousands of children in the mining areas of South Wales will be unable to visit the seaside this year?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. As I have already stated in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristsl (Mr. Inskip), I am told that one adult to 10 children is sufficient.

Mr. LEWIS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman also say that he had not attended a Sunday-school treat for many years?

MOTOR TRAFFIC.

Sir R. CHADWICK: 19.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that the rapid growth of motor traffic of all kinds is exercising a very prejudicial effect on the roads of the country, which were not constructed to deal with it; and whether he has called, or is calling, the attention of the various local authorities to the need for taking the problem into their immediate consideration?

Sir E. GEDDES: The matter referred to by my hon. Friend has for a long time been receiving close and anxious consideration, both on the part of the officers of the Ministry of Transport and of the highway authorities concerned. The financial proposals now before the House have been framed with a view to assisting the highway authorities to put all the more important roads in the country as rapidly as possible into a condition to bear the heavy increase of motor traffic.

Sir R. CHADWICK: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to inform the House if the rapid growth of motor traffic is exercising any effect on the competitive services of the railway companies, either as to passenger or goods traffic?

Sir E. GEDDES: The railway companies are carrying a greater passenger and general goods traffic than ever before. Road motor services have attracted to road some traffic which might otherwise have travelled by rail; but they have undoubtedly also created new traffic. I see no reason to suppose that such competition is at present exercising any appreciable effect on the services of the railway companies, and in any case the needs of the country are likely to require all the facilities which the various agencies of transport can afford.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask, if the railway companies are carrying such vastly increased traffic, whether they cannot possibly do something towards lowering some of the fares?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, Sir, I am afraid they cannot. There is an increasing quantity of traffic offered, increasing number of passengers are travelling, and the wages are continually increasing also.

RAILWAY FARES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 16.
asked the Minister of Transport what representation the travelling public have on the Railway Commission or other body now considering what increase of fares may be necessary to meet the increase of salaries of railway employés; and will he say by whom such representatives were appointed?

Sir E. GEDDES: Any additional expenditure resulting from the grant of increased salaries to railway employés
will have to be taken into account in the systematic revision of all railway charges which is now under consideration by the Rates Advisory Committee set up in accordance with Section 21 of the Ministry of Transport Act. The composition of the Committee is fixed by the Act, and was the subject of considerable discussion during the passage of the Bill.

Colonel NEWMAN: May I ask who are on the Committee now? Has it been appointed?

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, it has been working for nearly a year.

Colonel NEWMAN: Could I have the names?

Sir E. GEDDES: I will send them to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir ROBERT CHADWICK: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the need still exists for persuading the public not to indulge in unnecessary railway travelling, and whether the present scale of fares was imposed for revenue purposes, and not as a deterrent?

Sir E. GEDDES: The increased fares, although originally imposed for the purpose of restricting travelling, are now required to meet the additional expenditure of railway companies arising from the increased cost of labour and materials.

SEASON TICKETS (SCOTLAND).

Mr. STURROCK: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that season ticket holders on local railway services in Scotland are, under recently-imposed regulations, subjected to inconvenience and delay by being compelled to show their season tickets to railway officials as often as six or twelve times a day; and whether, in view of this system of checking being not only financially burdensome to the railway companies, but the cause of serious delay to railway patrons, he can state the reason for the continuance of this War-time practice?

Sir E. GEDDES: The more stringent examination of tickets by the railway companies throughout the country is rendered necessary in order to prevent fraud, which, I regret to say, is still too prevalent.

Mr. STURROCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on these branch
lines every passenger is known to the local officials, and that this vexatious and irritating system leads to very great delay and must be extremely burdensome to the companies; and will he not see if some modified regulation can be issued?

Sir E. GEDDES: The only modified regulation that one could issue would be that when a passenger was supposed to be honest he need not be asked to show his ticket. That would create a discrimination which I am not prepared to recommend.

DEARNE VALLEY RAILWAY.

Mr. JOHN GUEST: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that on the Dearne Valley Railway, running from Wakefield to Edlington, near Doncaster, a distance of about 20 miles, and which is used for passenger traffic, there is neither platform accommodation nor shelter of any kind available for passengers at any of the various stopping places; if he is aware that this lack of facilities and accommodation is dangerous and detrimental to health, and prevents the line being of that public service which is desirable and necessary; and if he will take steps to have proper station accommodation provided at the various centres at an early date.

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the facts as regards accommodation on the Dearne Valley Railway, but this line is primarily a mineral line and the only service available for passengers is that of rail motor cars. There are no ordinary fully equipped stations and no staff. Increased cost of operating and construction are making it increasingly difficult to operate such lines, and economies must be faced if such lines are to be maintained at all.

Mr. GUEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great feeling there is in the district on the matter? The railway provides practically no facilities at all.

Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid the feeling will have to continue to exist if the railway cannot be run at a profit.

LONDON TRAFFIC.

Mr. L. MALONE: 56.
asked what steps have been taken, or are going to be taken, to improve the traffic arrangements in London and the suburbs.

Sir E. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Streatham on the 1st instant. A number of improvements have already been carried out with the co-operation of the transport operating authorities. The Report of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic which makes important recommendations for the control of London Traffic is under consideration by the Cabinet, and as stated by the Leader of the House on the 1st instant regard is being had, in considering the legislation for the remainder of the present Session, to the need for legislation in regard to London Traffic.

HOLIDAY TRAFFIC.

Mr. HURD: asked the Minister of Transport, whether he is aware that a number of ordinary trains were suspended for the convenience of race-goers during the Epsom week, and whether similar consideration will be shown to holiday makers of the poorer classes and school children by the provision of cheap seaside and other excursions at week-ends when rolling stock is available without the dislocation of ordinary traffic.

Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware that special railway arrangements which involved the suspension of a number of ordinary trains were made to deal with the exceptional passenger traffic during the Epsom race meeting, but none were run at less than the ordinary fares. The railway companies similarly strengthen train services to deal with holiday traffic at ordinary fares during the summer months. I can hold out no hope of cheap week-end tickets under the present working conditions and financial position of the railways. As stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Pontypridd on the 20th May, reduced fare facilities are being granted for the annual day outings for recognised school treats.

FISH WAGONS (COVERS).

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that loss is being caused to the Scottish fish trade through the failure of the railways to provide covers in all cases for wagons in which fish is conveyed to England; and whether he will take steps with a view to removing the cause of the grievance?

Sir E. GEDDES: One instance of alleged damage of fish owing to its being forwarded from Scotland to London in an unsheeted open wagon has been brought to my notice, and I am now investigating this case. I am informed, however, that many senders of fish object to its being sheeted during the summer season, as they are of opinion that this causes the fish to heat.

WATERLOO AND CITY RAILWAY (RETURN TICKETS).

Mr. GILBERT: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Waterloo and City Tube Railway have recently abolished return tickets, which will increase the fare on the double journey by 33⅓ per cent.; whether this increase was submitted to his Department before being put into force; if he has made inquiry into the reasons for the increase; and if he approves it?

Sir E. GEDDES: I was not aware that the Waterloo and City Tube Railway had recently abolished return tickets. The authority of the Minister of Transport is not necessary for any increases within the statutory maximum powers of this undertaking. I am making inquiry into the circumstances, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

ROLLING STOCK (SALES TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport how many of the 23,600 wagons and 260 locomotives that have been sold to foreign Governments could have been converted for use on British railways; and whether any more British rolling stock abroad is to be sold to foreigners?

Mr. BILLING: 72.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions how many wagons of the same gauge as the British railways and also how many engines have been disposed of by His Majesty's Government; whether the Ministry of Transport was consulted before they were sold; and also the price or average price per wagon and per locomotive realised?

Captain THORPE: 73.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
Munitions whether he can now say what proportion of the railway wagons and locomotives sold by the Disposals Board to the Belgian Government and the French Northern Railway Company were serviceable on English railways?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I have made further inquiry into this matter, and am assured that none of the wagons or locomotives sold by the Disposal Board to the Belgian Government and the French Northern Railway Company were suitable for English railways. I cannot give the average prices per wagon, as some of the sales included other material; but I shall be glad to furnish hon. Members with details of the prices. The Ministry of Transport has been consulted in respect of all such sales effected since that Ministry began its function. The question of further sales abroad or at home will be considered when more rolling stock is thrown up for disposal; but it is unlikely that there will be any great quantity available, and part of such rolling stock will be in distant theatres.
I regret that my former answer on this matter contained a substantial error. The number of wagons sold by the Disposal Board to the Belgian Government is 9,250.

Mr. HOUSTON: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what has become of the great amount of rolling stock sent over to France at the beginning of the War?

Mr. HOPE: I am only concerned with that which has been declared to be surplus.

Mr. BILLING: Is it a fact that miles of permanent way were pulled up in this country, and thousands of wagons were sent over? Having regard to the shortage, can something be done towards tracing some of this material?

Mr. HOPE: The functions of the Ministry of Munitions is merely to sell material which other Departments say they do not want.

Captain TERRELL: Is it not a fact that a large number of the wagons and locomotives which have been sold were used on British railways before the War?

Mr. BILLING: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether he will not take this question up with the various Depart-
ments interested in transport during the War, and see if he cannot trace some of this stock?

Sir E. GEDDES: Every British railway wagon, as far as I know, which was sent over from here and still exists, is either back in this country or coming. All the locomotives belonging to British railways have been brought back, and are, I think, in service.

SURPLUS STORES (FRANCE AND BELGIUM).

Major GLYN: 48.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that a quantity of ammunition still remaining undisposed of in France and Flanders is rapidly reaching a condition of considerable danger through deterioration and climatic agencies; whether, should this ammunition explode, the British Government will become liable to large sums of money for damage done to life and property; and whether he will cause united action to be taken by the Departments (War Office, Ministry of Munitions and Foreign Office) concerned in order to remove these 120,000 tons of ammunition to be broken down or sunk without delay?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Every endeavour is being made by Departments concerned to accelerate disposal or removal of surplus ammunition remaining in France and Flanders. A considerable quantity remains in dumps which conform to French Safety Regulations and which are regularly inspected by French experts, and in any cases where danger is suspected special precautions are taken.

Major GLYN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that trucks and barges are lying idle in French ports because they are unable to get the ammunition to take it away?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that. I will inquire into it.

Major GLYN: 49.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that the work of clearing up in France and Belgium those financial and other obligations is greatly hindered, so far as the military authorities are concerned, by the fact that it is impossible to settle outstanding Army claims so long as the Ministry of Munitions Disposals Board still hold surplus stores unsold; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will authorise the financial branch of the War
Office to settle all Army claims forthwith, and instruct the Ministry of Munitions to settle all other claims affected by the operations of the Disposals Board from and subsequent to 1st July.

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. There is no connection between outstanding Army claims and surplus stores held by the Disposals Board.

TYRES.

Mr. DOYLE: 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that the Surplus Disposal Board have offered for disposal a quantity of 65,000 unused solid tyres, and 25,000 unused pneumatic motor tyres, at present lying at the Slough depôt; that with the exception of 8,000 of the pneumatic tyres, which have been sorted, the officials of the Board have no record of the sizes, types, or makes of these tyres, and that consequently they can only be sold at a heavy loss; that large quantities of tyres are still being bought from tyre manufacturers for current requirements, and as there is no record of the sizes of the tyres lying at Slough, it is probable that the Department may be buying the same sizes and types as are now lying at Slough; and whether he is aware that the present approximate cost of such a quantity of tyres would be from half to three-quarters of a million sterling, and if he will cause an investigation to be undertaken as to the persons responsible for such wasteful lack of system?

Mr. HOPE: The Disposal Board have now no tyres at the Slough Depôt, which was sold, with all surplus transport and spares, on the 7th April last. No purchases of solid tyres have been made by the Ministry of Munitions on behalf of the Government since the Armistice, but 38,000 pneumatic covers of various sizes were required by the War Office in June, 1919, and as no supplies were available from surplus stocks, contracts were placed with the trade.

Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some £750,000 worth of these tyres were lying in stock at Slough, and will some inquiry be made as to who was responsible for buying 36,000 tyres, when there were three times that number of the same size lying in the country?

Mr. HOPE: The War Office said that they wished to have these tyres, and an examination by the Ministry of Munitions and the Disposal Board revealed the fact that they had not the particular tyres that the War Office required.

Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that the War Office wanted the ordinary standard tyres, and that there were stocks of standard tyres, and who was responsible for telling the War Office that they had not got them, when they had got them?

Mr. HOPE: I must have notice of that question.

RAILWAY MATERIAL, FRANCE.

Major GLYN: 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether any date has been fixed by which the French Government will be in a position to decide which of the railways laid down in France for war purposes it is proposed to retain, in order that those other railway tracks, which at the request of the French Government have also been left, may be removed forthwith, and the claims for the land being reconditioned and rents settled proceeded with without further delay?

Mr. HOPE: The answer to this question is in the negative. I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend an extract from the agreement under which the sale of transportation assets in France was effected to the French Government in so far as it relates to the compensation payable for the occupation of land.

Major GLYN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to inquire, in respect of such arrangements, how much it is now costing the War Office?

Mr. HOPE: I think that question ought to be addressed to the War Office, but I will make inquiries.

AEROPLANE HANGARS, SOUTHAMPTON.

Mr. PALMER: 74.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that, during the last few weeks, three hangars on a common known as West Marlands, Southampton West, measuring each about 50 yards by 40 yards, which were erected less than two years ago, have been left without a caretaker, with the result that destruction has been caused by the tearing and ripping away of the canvas which is used by children to make swings within
the hangars; that in one hangar dozens of wings of aeroplanes have been broken and thrown about; that men visit the place with barrows and tear linen from the wings which they stuff into sacks; that an immense quantity of iron and steel bolts has been stolen; and that every available piece of wood has been torn down and removed; and if he will state the cost to the State of these hangars, erected as a temporary collecting house for aeroplanes brought over from France, and who is responsible for this failure to protect public property and the consequent waste of public money?

Mr. HOPE: The hangars in question were notified to the Disposal Board by the Air Ministry as surplus early this year, and were sold on the 4th May. The size of the hangars is 66 feet by 79 feet. The responsibility for custody, previous to the date of sale, rested with the Air Ministry, and since that date rests with the purchasers. I have no knowledge of the original cost to the State of the hangars in question.

Mr. PALMER: Can the hon. Gentleman say what price was paid for them and who bought them?

Mr. HOPE: I must have notice of that question.

KHAKI CLOTH.

Mr. HURD: 75.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions the approximate amount of khaki cloth which has been disposed of since the Armistice; what is the average price obtained per yard; and what is the amount of khaki cloth now in the hands of the Disposal Board?

Mr. HOPE: The amount of khaki cloth disposed of since the Armistice is 9,500,000 yards. The average price obtained per yard is 9s. No khaki cloth now remains in the hands of the Disposal Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

MESOPOTAMIA.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 25.
asked the Prime Minister if Mesopotamia is under the India Office, and if a British policy has been decided upon; and whether the consent of the House of Commons is to be obtained to sanction this policy?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): No decision as to the future administration of Mesopotamia will be taken until the Peace Treaty with Turkey has been signed, and the terms of the Mandates settled.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: How long is it likely to be before the Mandate is settled?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure when the Peace Treaty will be signed. I hope the Mandate will be settled soon. The hon. Member knows the difficulties which have arisen in connection with it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it likely to be quicker than the settlement of the Mandates for East Africa and the Cameroons—a year overdue?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.

Mr. HERBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a state of indecision is one of the things which is contributing to high prices?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are pressing for a settlement as rapidly as we possibly can, but my hon. Friend must realise that there are several Peace Treaties which have to be negotiated separately, one after the other, and the amount of work that has been got through is prodigious, considering what was to be done.

PALESTINE (MR. HERBERT SAMUEL).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether a civil administrator has been appointed to carry out the policy agreed upon at San Remo in regard to Palestine; when he will take over from the military authorities, and whether he will be directly responsible to a British Government Department and, if so, which, or whether he will be in any way dependent on the British High Commissioner in Egypt?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The Right Hon. Herbert Samuel has been appointed head of the administration. He will be directly responsible to the Government. An announcement as to the date when he will assume office will shortly be made.

Mr. HOGGE: What salary is he being paid?

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: On which Vote will the salary come?

GERMAN INDEMNITY.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether the expert appointed at the Hythe Conference to investigate, in conjunction with a representative of the French Government, the question of the German indemnity was a member of the Committee appointed in November, 1918, which reported that Germany could pay £24,000,000,000?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir.

ARMENIA.

Mr. C. PALMER: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether the invitation to the President of the United States to delimit the boundaries of Armenia under the Turkish Treaty, which Mr. Wilson has accepted, was in any way contingent on the United States agreeing to accept the mandatory for Armenia; and whether, in view of the failure of the United States to accept that mandatory, the question of President Wilson's assistance in the task of delimitation will be reconsidered by the Allies?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated that America has accepted the duty of delimiting the boundaries?

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated dissent.

GERMANY (ALLIED OCCUPATION).

Mr. PALMER: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether one of the decisions come to at the Hythe Conference was that, in the event of Germany failing to carry out the terms of the Versailles Treaty, there would be an Allied occupation of further German territory?

The PRIME MINISTER: There was no discussion of this question at Hythe, and therefore no change made in the Allied policy as set forth in the San Remo Declaration.

Mr. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that M. Millerand stated in the French Chamber that this decision had been come to?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that.

POLICE OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir J. REMNANT: 26.
asked the Prime Minister if legislation is necessary before the increase in the police pensions (pre 1st April, 1919) can be given; and, if so, when he proposes to introduce a Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible date.

Sir J. REMNANT: Can the same procedure be followed in this case as was followed in the increase of Old Age Pensions—done at one sitting—and has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that since the declaration was made of the increase of pensions by the Leader of the House many deaths have occurred amongst these poor old pensioners whose lives might have been prolonged if the increase had been given earlier?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will be pressed through at the earliest possible date, but the procedure of the House, of course, has to be complied with. In the other case the orders of the House were suspended because there was only one day left.

Mr. SEDDON: Will it be retrospective to the date the Leader of the House promised the increase should be given?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.

ARABIA.

Mr. OMSBY-GORE: 30.
asked the Prime Minister what steps, if any, are being taken to bring to an end the hostilities between the Wahabis under the Emir Ibn Saoud and the Kingdom of Hedjaz?

The PRIME MINISTER: As to the relations between Emir Ibn Saoud and the King of the Hedjaz, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply returned to the hon. Member for the Wrekin on 3rd June. His Majesty's Government are using every endeavour to bring about a settlement of such differences as are outstanding between the two rulers.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the matter being dealt with by the India Office or the Foreign Office?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure it is not Marshal Allenby.

Mr. PALMER: Does a state of war exist between these two potentates?

The PRIME MINISTER: There has never been a state of peace.

LICENSING BILL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to introduce a Bill for the regulation of the liquor traffic?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, on the 2nd June.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the Christian Churches last October, and did not he promise to introduce this legislation before last Christmas?

Major Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Would it not be easier to introduce a measure of this kind, if it were not for the continued obstruction of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull?

Mr. HOGGE: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us the date, can he say whether the Bill will deal with the traffic as a whole from the view of the vested interests, or whether it will be a continuation of limited control?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is desirable to enter into any details. The measure will be introduced as soon as there is any chance of its being carried through, but the pressure is very great; and, as every Member of the House knows perfectly well, more legislative work has been carried through in the last two or three years than ever within living memory. We cannot carry them all.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Am I correctly informed about this important deputation that waited on the right hon. Gentleman last October?

The PRIME MINISTER: I see so many deputations that I cannot bear in mind everything they say to me and that I say in reply. I am doing my best to live up to them all.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the desire existing in Scotland that the question of the articles of the Church of Scotland and the question of endowments should be treated in one comprehensive measure so as to make clear the position as a whole; and whether any representations in a contrary sense have been received from the Church of Scotland or the United Free Church?

The PRIME MINISTER: The desire referred to in the question found no expression so far as I know in the General Assemblies. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. SHAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the House on Wednesday last said the two Assemblies specially affected made it perfectly clear that they desired two Bills instead of one, and is he further aware that there is no foundation for that statement?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the hon. Member say that I said anyone desired two Bills instead of one? If so, I have no recollection of making any such statement.

Mr. SHAW: I have looked at the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I think we must have been at cross-purposes.

Sir H. CRAIK: This House may be a suitable authority for dealing with the endowments of the Church of Scotland, but it is possible the people of Scotland might prefer to have the question of the Articles of the Church of Scotland dealt with in another way.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to learn that in Scotland the question of Church reunion depends not merely on the question of the abolition of State control over policy and over doctrine, but also on the abolition of State control over funds?

Colonel GREIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman postpone the whole question till it can be settled by a Scottish Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: This is a very dangerous question for a mere Southerner to express any opinion upon.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: 51.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that the second article of the draft articles declaratory of the constitution of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual contains the provision that the government of the church is Presbyterian; whether he is aware that the eighth article provides that the Church has the right to interpret, modify, or add to those articles, but always consistently with the first article, which does not stipulate that the government of the church should be Presbyterian; whether he is advised that these articles would not set the Church of Scotland free to abandon Presbyterianism and become Episcopal without the consent of the State and at the same time to retain all the privileges and emoluments of an established church; whether he is aware that many members of the Church and others believe that the articles would have this effect; and whether, before committing the Government to promote legislation embodying these articles, he will consult the legal advisers of the Crown as to whether they would have this effect?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that the articles have been criticised in the sense and on the assumptions indicated by my hon. Friend. The Government will, of course, have the assistance of their legal advisers in framing or interpreting any legislation of the kind referred to.

Mr. SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Glasgow Herald," one of the most responsible and influential newspapers in Scotland, not merely consents to accept this interpretation of the articles, but justifies it and defends the articles on the ground that they would have that effect, and if it is proved to his satisfaction or to the satisfaction of the Government that they will have that effect, will it influence their decision in any way?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to refer to
a newspaper in this way when asking a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for us to give characters to particular newspapers.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Finance Committee of the Cabinet has yet made any estimate of what this country, taking its income into consideration, can really afford in the way of public expenditure?

The PRIME MINISTER: In presenting the Estimates which have been laid before the House, the Cabinet must be taken as approving the expenditure therein provided, and in sanctioning the Budget proposals they show that they are of opinion that the country can provide the resources necessary to meet it.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very important that we should have some kind of estimate of what this country can afford?

The PRIME MINISTER: I take it the Budget Estimate presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents an inquiry of that sort.

Mr. PALMER: Would it not be a good idea to appoint Committees of business men to go into the whole business, and to examine the Estimates of Departments?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Can the country still afford the Disposal Board, and if not, can it be wound up at an early date?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH GOVERNMENT STORES (SEIZURE).

Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: 29.
asked the Prime Minister if the Bolshevists have, at different times and at various ports, seized large quantities of flax, timber, &c., the property of His Majesty's Government; and, if this is so, will he say what guarantee can be given that, in the event of trading relations being entered into either directly or indirectly with the Bolshevist Government, such stores shall not be tendered in payment of goods supplied from this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: This will be one of the subjects for consideration when the experts meet.

SOVIET TRADE DELEGATION.

Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Prime Minister why any negotiations have taken place with a representative of the Soviet Government while British officers and men are held prisoners and hostages, and are reported to be used as slaves at forced labour; whether His Majesty's Government have the full concurrence of our Allies in opening any sort of negotiation with Soviet Russia; whether such negotiations do in fact involve recognition of the Soviet Government; and is it intended to continue them irrespective of the present and further acts of the Soviet Government, and the past declaration of the Prime Minister?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the statement made on this subject on Thursday last.

Viscount CURZON: Does America stand with us on this question of recognising Soviet Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of this question.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Have all these prisoners yet been released?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe a good many have been released. I am not sure the majority have not been, but I should like to have notice, and I will give the accurate figure.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prisoners in Siberia—18 officers and men—are under Soviet Governments, which are not in communication with Moscow, or under their orders at all?

Viscount CURZON: Does the reply refer to naval prisoners?

The PRIME MINSTER: That was one of the questions addressed to me on Wednesday last. The demand we put forward certainly extended to naval prisoners.

Lord R. CECIL: Will it be possible to ask Dr. Nansen, who, I understand, is proceeding to Siberia in connection with prisoners, to look into the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have had the privilege of a conversation with Dr. Nansen a few minutes ago on this and other subjects.

Colonel GRETTON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether a day will be given or other opportunity afforded this House to consider the Russian negotiations before this country is committed to any engagements or understanding with the Russian Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no reason to believe that there is any general desire for such a discussion. If there were such a desire, the Government would endeavour to find time for it.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to ascertain if there be any general desire?

Colonel GRETTON: In what way can the Prime Minister be convinced that there is a general desire for a discussion of this subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend is an old and experienced Member, and he knows perfectly well that there are ways and means of communicating with the Government a general desire. Time is getting very limited. There is not much time, before the end of the Session, to do our work. Therefore, we are not anxious to allcoate time for discussion, unless there be a real desire, not on the part of a few Members, but a general desire of the House that there should be a discussion. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing I desire more.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are we to understand that M. Krassin is actually a representative of the Soviet Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already answered that question.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to give notice that I shall move the Adjournment of the House later, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. BENNETT: 61.
asked whether His Majesty's Government, before consenting to enter into conversation with M. Krassin, obtained any assurance that the Russian Soviet Government would recognise debts due to the subjects of Allied States by Russia whether in the
form of State debts or of money due to individuals for property taken possession of by the Soviet authorities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth on 3rd June.

At the end of Questions—

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the negotiations which have been commenced with Monsieur Krassin.

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter past Eight this evening.

POLAND.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Polish Government has expressed a desire to enter into peace negotiations with the Soviet Government; if so, whether he will use his good offices with M. Krassin to bring about the suspension of hostilities and the opening of negotiations between Poland and Soviet Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: Since the recent operations we have received no communication from the Polish Government expressing a desire to enter into peace negotiations with the Soviet Government, and we have no knowledge of the attitude of either of the two Governments.

STATE OBLIGATIONS.

Mr. L. MALONE: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in reference to Russian coupons paid since March, 1917, by the French Government, or to Russian securities accepted by the French Government in part payment of French losses, he can state the last date on which coupons so paid fell due or the date of the last French loan, part payment for which was so accepted; and whether there has been any provision made or agreement arrived at for the liquidation of these Russian State debts by the Supreme Allied Council or the British Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information in regard to action taken by the French Government in respect of Russian securities beyond what appears in official French documents. I understand that coupons of loans issued or guaranteed by the Russian State which had fallen due or were to fall due during 1918, were accepted on certain conditions in payment of subscriptions to the internal French loan of October, 1918. The Treasury have no further information as to the first part of the question. The answer to the last part is in the negative.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the subject of the repayment of the Russian external debt is a subject of conversation with M. Krassin?

Mr. MALONE: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the French Government has at various times since March, 1917, paid the coupons or interest on Russian State obligations; how much money has been so paid out by the French Government; whether he is aware that the French Government has also accepted as part payment for French loans the delivery of Russian State bonds or scrip; how much State loan of the French Government has been paid for in Russian securities thus delivered to it; whether these transactions have been the subject of official communications and negotiations between the French and British Governments; and whether the British Government is under any guarantee, promise, or obligation given in connection with the Russian State debts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Treasury have no information as to the first and second parts of the question. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative, and, according to a statement made by the French Budget Commission in 1919, coupons to the value of 265,703,000 francs were accepted in payment of subscriptions to the internal French loan of October, 1918. The answers to the fifth and sixth parts of the question are in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MURDER AND ASSASSINATION.

Mr. DONALD: 39.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to take steps to bring to jus-
tice all persons who are associated with crime in Ireland; and whether all measures necessary will be taken to ensure the prosecution and punishment of persons accused of having committed an act in violation of the laws?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative, and, with this object in view, the Government are reorganising the Irish Executive, strengthening the police, the Navy, and the Army in Ireland, and it will probably also be necessary for them to strengthen the law dealing with crime. It is the intention of the Government to take all necessary steps to put down the present organised campaign of murder and assassination.

Sir E. CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will bring in a Bill to take away the statutory limitation for claims arising out of malicious injuries, and for the assertion of rights of property which have been forcibly taken away?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is one of the subjects which we are considering, and we may introduce an amending Bill.

Mr. DONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the criminals who has been released will be rearrested, so that an opportunity may be given for other people to identify them in connection with crimes?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be very undesirable for me to give an answer on this question. It is one of the questions under review.

CATTLE DRIVING.

Major O'NEILL: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that numbers of people who graze land in the West of Ireland are being impoverished by reason of the fact that their stock is being driven away and their employés forced to leave their employment under threats of death; and will he introduce legislation to provide compensation to the farmers for the loss of their stock and business, and to the workpeople for the loss of their employment, other than what is provided under the Malicious Injuries Act?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The question
of compensating innocent persons for loss due to intimidation and cattle driving is under consideration.

Major O'NEILL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think there is an obligation on the Imperial Government to compensate these people, in view of the fact that damage arises by reason of the Government not being able to give adequate protection?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is practically the same question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

PERSIA.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Council of the League of Nations has been summoned at the instance of the Persian Government; if so, when and for what purpose; and whether the British Government will take the opportunity of bringing before the Council the other dangers and difficulties which are disturbing the peace of Central Europe?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 50.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether a special meeting of the League of Nations Council will be summoned to consider the question in dispute between Russia and Persia?

The PRIME MINISTER: A special meeting has been summoned to be held in London on 14th June, in consequence of an application from the Persian Government under Act 11 of the Covenant. The object of the meeting is to consider the situation created by the Bolshevist occupation of Enseli. I have no doubt that the opportunity will be taken to consider the other dangers and difficulties referred to by my Noble Friend.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the whole question of British relationship with Persia will be discussed by the Council at the same time?

HON. MEMBERS: Certainly not.

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated dissent.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider—I do not ask for an answer at the moment—whether at this Council the British Government might not be represented by the Prime Minister?

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated assent.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. WALLACE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will agree to the appointment of a small Committee of business Members of the House of Commons to inquire into the alleged extravagance of various Government Departments, with full powers to call for information on such matters as the alleged extravagance in expensive and unnecessary accommodation and personnel and prodigal expenditure in stationery, postage, etc.?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to duplicate the work of the Select Committee on National Expenditure and the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. WALLACE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us know of cases of the specific extravagance of Government Departments, and does he not consider it advisable to appoint this Committee which will really help the Government in that way?

Mr. MARRIOTT: Is it not a fact that the Select Committee on National Expenditure has asked all the Members of this House to bring such cases before their notice?

Mr. WALLACE: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question—

The PRIME MINISTER: I understood that there were cases of that kind which could be brought before the attention of the Select Committee, and now I learn from a member of that Committee that they are only too anxious to investigate them. If these cases were brought before the notice of the Ministers, with particulars, which might be confidential, we should be glad to investigate the cases, and it would assist us considerably in cutting down expenditure. We rather invite Members to bring these cases to our notice.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Will the Report of the Committee be published at once?

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT (RULES).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the rules of
procedure under the Electricity Supply Act have been formulated; if so, when they will be published; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay?

Sir E. GEDDES: The rules referred to are now in course of settlement. Notice of the intention to make such rules will be inserted in the Gazette in a few days' time, and copies of the draft rules will then be available.

SMYRNA (CAPITULATIONS).

Mr. A. HERBERT: 60.
asked whether the capitulations have been abolished in the Smyrna area occupied by the Greeks; and if this constitutes a grave danger to British trade?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.

EGYPT (MILNER COMMISSION).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 64.
asked whether the Milner Commission on the future Government of Egypt has recently got into touch with any representatives of the Egyptian Nationalist party in London or in Paris; whether the members of the Egyptian Nationalist party who have approached members of the Milner Commission are empowered to speak on behalf of the party; and whether these conversations will still further delay the issue of the Report of the Commission?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is to say that the Report will be issued irrespective of any conversations that are now taking place?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No. What I said was that I do not anticipate that there will be any additional delay on account of these conversations.

PASSPORTS (FRANCE).

Sir P. SASSOON: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the great incon-
venience and loss of time and money caused in business circles and to the general public by the continued necessity for passports for persons visiting France, and in particular of loss caused to Folkestone by the consequent restriction of one of the attractions that before the War took visitors to that place; and whether the time has arrived when pre-War practice in this respect can be reverted to or, if this is not yet possible, whether the necessity of getting duly executed British passports visæd by Foreign consulates can be abolished?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Passports are issued to British subjects without difficulty or delay and are valid for travelling to the countries named for two years without any further British visa. Furthermore, travellers to France can now obtain on application a French visa enabling them to travel to France any number of times for a year without any further visa. Special arrangements have also been made for the excursionist traffic between Folkestone and Boulogne whereby the visa is dispensed with in such cases. The necessity for British subjects obtaining a visa from foreign Consulates is one required by foreign passport regulations.

Sir S. ROBERTS: Are the passports issued during the War still available?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think that all the passports issued during the War are now out of date.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the Government approach the French Government with a view to getting the visa system abolished, and will the Government take the expression of opinion of the House on the subject as given constantly in debate?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will cause consideration to be given to that.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman carry it a stage further and have representations made to all our Allies in reference to these visas?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a very difficult question, but I will consider it.

RABIES.

Mr. BLAIR: 67.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agricul-
ture whether any cases of rabies have occurred among the dogs landed from abroad and undergoing quarantine; whether such dogs were apparently healthy when landed and how long it was before the disease manifested itself; and whether, in view of the evidence before the Ministry, the increase in the period of quarantine appears to be justified?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): Yes, Sir, two undoubted cases of rabies have occurred among dogs undergoing quarantine and a third highly suspicious case is at present under investigation. In both cases confirmed as rabies, the dogs were landed in an apparently healthy condition. In one case the disease manifested itself after 2½ months' quarantine and the other after a period of 4 months. In view of these circumstances, the Ministry is satisfied that the increase in the period of quarantine is fully justified, and it is satisfactory to note that no case of rabies has occurred in any animal which has been liberated as healthy after undergoing the statutory period of quarantine.

STALLIONS (KING'S PREMIUM).

Sir R. NEWMAN: 68.
asked the number of thoroughbred stallions who have been awarded a King's Premium for this season that have won races under Jockey Club rules; and whether, in view to the great value afforded by the racecourse test as to a horse's stamina and soundness, the judges who award these premiums are instructed to consider a stallion's record on the turf before making their awards?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Of the 60 stallions which were awarded King's Premiums this season, 53 had been raced and 36 of them were winners. In their award of premiums the judges take into consideration a stallion's turf record, and with this object in view they are furnished by the Ministry with particulars of the racing performances of all the horses exhibited for premiums.

GOVERNMENT OFFICE ACCOMMODATION, CROMWELL ROAD.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: 71.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that a
house in Cromwell Road was commandeered in June, 1918, at the nominal rent of £100 per annum, and that the tenant clearly stated that this rent was only accepted because the house was commandeered; whether it is now claimed that the house was not commandeered; whether last March the tenant asked that a fair market rate should be paid for the house, and whether the Disposal Board then offered to recommend the Treasury that £200 per annum should be paid for the remainder of the lease on condition that at its termination the Government should have a lease of 7 or 14 years at £300 per annum; whether this offer was declined; and what steps the Disposal Board intend to take to restore this property to its rightful owner, and to give compensation for the loss incurred?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): The house referred to was not commandeered, but taken under agreement. The question of revising the agreement was recently raised by the lessor. An offer on the lines mentioned was made by my Department as a compromise, but was not accepted. It is not possible to surrender the house, as the accommodation is required for Government staffs, and no reason is seen for releasing the owner from the agreement, but my Department is at present considering whether any concession can be made in regard to the amount of rent named in the agreement.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: May I ask whether this proposal to take a lease of this house for fourteen years explains what is going on in the Disposal Board at the present time?

Sir A. MOND: I know nothing at all about the Disposal Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

FURNITURE DEPARTMENT, LAMBETH PALACE ROAD.

Mr. BRIANT: 76.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how many of the 92 non-service men retained at the furniture department, Lambeth Palace Road, were engaged subsequent to the outbreak of War.

Sir A. MOND: There are now 58 non-service men employed in the furniture department, three of whom were employed before the War and 55 subsequently.

RUSSO-ASIATIC CORPORATION.

Mr. W. SHAW: 77.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing, as stated by him, that a decision has now been given in the case of the Russo-Asiatic Corporation (in liquidation) and the Income Tax Commissioners, he will see that instructions are immediately issued so that this matter, which interests many shareholders, may be settled without further delay?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The Special Commissioners have given their decision on the question of law involved and are awaiting the result of negotiations with the company as to the proper figures to be adopted on the basis of their decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT).

Major EDWARDS: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether according to The Education Act, 1918, no child under the age of 12 is to be employed; if so, whether he is aware that many such children are employed in industrial areas in selling newspapers; and whether he will take the necessary steps to put the Act into force in this respect?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. As regards the last part, the duty of enforcing the provisions of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, as amended by the Education Act, 1918, rests with the local authorities. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any information which indicates that the provision to which he refers is not being enforced and will give it to me, I will communicate with the local authorities concerned.

Major EDWARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information has been supplied?

Mr. SHORTT: No, I was not.

LONDON UNIVERSITY (NEW SITE).

Sir W. DAVISON: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Education where Members can obtain particulars of the exact number of private residences, boarding-houses and hotels which are situated on the site behind the British Museum which the Government have offered to the University of London; what is the estimated number of persons who would be displaced if the site were to be cleared; whether any other and, if so, what other sites have been considered by the Government; and will he state when the House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter and when estimates of the cost involved will be available?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Education why, when he knew that the Foundling Hospital site was available for the new university, no negotiations were opened with that body as well as with the Duke of Bedford?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): The Government have considered the possibilities of a number of sites for the University of London, including the Foundling Hospital, a site south of the river, between the new County Hall and Hungerford Bridge, another between Waterloo Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge, and also the feasibility of utilising Somerset House or of effecting an extension of the present University quarters in the Imperial Institute. As I have already stated in this House, the Bedford estate site is, in the opinion of the Government, undoubtedly the best for the purpose, and they did not, therefore, open negotiations for properties which they regarded as less suitable. My letter, offering the site to the Chancellor of the University, and giving a description of it, was published in the Press on 20th May. As the site includes four vacant plots, and as the majority of the leases fall in at different periods after 1923, it would only come into occupation gradually, and it is not, therefore, necessary at this stage to attempt to estimate the number of persons who might eventually be displaced. The House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter when the Estimates for Public Works and Buildings are taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR WEALTH LEVY.

STATEMENT BY MR. CHAMBERLAIN.

Mr. CLYNES: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he can make any statement regarding the Government's policy on the Reports of the Select Committee in favour of taxing war fortunes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend has not exactly described the purport of the Report to which he alludes, but I am in a position this afternoon to announce the decision of the Government. The Government, after full consideration of the Report of the Select Committee and of the respective advantages and disadvantages of the suggested scheme for a levy on war wealth, have come to the conclusion that the dangers attendant on such a levy altogether outweigh any advantages which can be derived from it. They have decided not to make any proposals, in that sense, to the House.

Mr. CLYNES: In view of the terms of the reply, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the House can be afforded an early opportunity of discussing this decision of the Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Time is of great importance at this stage of the Session, but I am inclined to think that the House would rather like, after so much discussion of this subject, to have an opportunity of debating it, and of hearing the grounds on which we have come to that decision. If so, the sooner the better, and I will try to arrange to take it as the first Order to-morrow, on the understanding that the Debate finishes by dinner-time, if that be agreeable.

SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from
Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill: Sir William Howell Davies; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Gange.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Commander Bellairs; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Newman.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill): Dr. Addison, Mr. Burn, Captain Coote, Sir Henry Cowan, Mr. John Davison, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Hallas, Mr. Lorden, Mr. Marriott, Mr. Munro, Sir Henry Norris, Mr. Remer, Mr. Aneurin Williams, Sir Kingsley Wood, and Sir Alfred Yeo.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Captain FITZROY: On a point of Order. Having regard to the fact that the House has just given consent to the Adjournment Motion, and seeing that the Leader of the House has said that to-morrow afternoon he will put down as the first Order the question of War Wealth Taxation, may I ask what will be the position of the Agriculture Bill in that event, seeing that we are allowed from now only until 8.15 to discuss this most important measure to-day?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should have thought of that before giving leave to the Motion for the Adjournment. There was not a word of opposition when the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) raised the question; on the contrary, assent was granted unanimously, and the Motion will come on at 8.15 p.m.

Mr. BILLING: Would it be in Order, having regard to the importance of the agricultural measure, to move to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, and to allow the Debate to go on?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have already proceeded to the Orders of the Day.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In the month of August, 1916, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) appointed a Committee called the Agricultural Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee with a view to considering the future of agriculture, and the terms of reference to that Committee were as follow:
Having regard to the need of increased home growth of food supplies in the interest of national security, to consider and report on the methods of effecting such increase.
The Committee was specifically charged that they were to deal, not with War conditions, but with conditions after the War, or, in other words, they were to endeavour to introduce an agricultural
policy of a permanent character in times of peace. The Bill, of which I have the honour to move the Second Reading, is based, I do not say in every detail, but in all its main principles, on the Report of that Agricultural Reconstruction Committee. There is scarcely a single Clause in the whole Bill for which justification cannot be found in the Report of that Committee. The Bill represents the definite reconstruction policy as regards agriculture of the Government, not as a temporary War measure, but as the permanent policy of the country. It may be said at the very outset, why should there be any necessity for an agricultural policy, and why should we not leave agriculture alone? Agriculture is our oldest industry; it has gone on since the origin of time; it has had its ups and downs, and up to date there has never been a definite agricultural policy of the Government. It is quite true that up to the War there was no definite agricultural policy. Farmers were left to shift for themselves, and the State stood severely aside. What was the result? I am not going to weary the House with a long history of agriculture in this country, but I may mention one or two salient facts.
From the year 1854 to 1879 agriculture was signally prosperous in this country. Science was applied to it, and a great deal of drainage and reclamation work was done, and we produced a great amount of the cereals consumed in this country. Landlords, tenant farmers and agricultural labourers co-operated to produce the greatest possible amount of food in these islands. About 1879 a sudden change bgan. The year 1879 was remarkable for its most unfavourable climatic conditions. Following on that there came a period of most acute depression for agriculture. Free imports which had been introduced some years before began to have their effect. Corn was brought over and prices tumbled in the most extraordinary manner, and farmers found it was no longer possible to keep their land under the plough. Arable land was put down to pasture from one end of the country to the other, and many bankruptcies occurred amongst farmers. It is estimated that £800,000,000 of capital of landlords and farmers were lost during the period between 1879 and 1906. It was a period of complete and acute depression. The figures which show what the effect
on the food production of this country are as follows: In the year 1870 we had 3,761,000 acres under wheat, and in 1910 that had dropped to 1,856,000. Taking it in quarters, in 1870 we produced 13,500,000 quarters of wheat in these islands, and in 1910 that had dropped to 7,000,000 quarters. In the meantime, imports had increased enormously. The imports in 1870 were 8,611,000 quarters of wheat, and that had risen to 27,779,000 in 1910, with the result that whereas in 1870 we produced 60 per cent. of the wheat that was consumed in these islands, in the year 1910 we were only producing 20 per cent.
4.0 P.M.
Take it from another point of view and let us consider the alteration in the character of farming. Arable land fell from 24,000,000 acres in 1870 to 19,000,000 acres in 1910. Pasture similarly rose from 22,000,000 acres in 1870 to 27,000,000 acres in 1910, or, in other words, the arable land of this country, which was 52 per cent. in 1870, fell to 41 per cent. in 1910. Then, again, there is the number of men employed. The number of agricultural labourers in 1871—I am speaking now of males and females—was 1,905,000. In the census of 1911 that figure had dropped to 1,130,000, a loss of nearly 800,000 men employed on the land, of 800,000 less countrymen and women in our country districts in that period of years. In fact we have got to this position. We were producing so little food in this country that, roughly speaking, we were just producing enough to keep the country going from Friday night to Monday morning, while from Monday to Friday we were living on foreign imports, so that we had become agricultural week-enders. It may be argued, and I dare say it will, that this policy of importing foreign foodstuffs and exchanging them for manufactured goods enriched the country. I am not going to deny that that may be the fact. Economically, and judging it solely from that point of view, it may have been sound, but what other results have happened from it? In the first place it made us dangerously dependent on foreign countries for our food supplies. In the next place it depopulated our country districts and massed the people more and more into our big towns. I am not going to say a word against urban populations. I am the representative of a big urban population myself. I have the
greatest admiration for urban populations, and I like to hear the hum of industry. But I claim that for the stability of the nation it is most important that we should have a balance between our urban and our rural people. Whether it be from the point of view of recruiting our soldiers for war or recruiting from healthy stock those who are to go out and work in the towns, I say that it is most important that we should maintain a healthy agricultural stock of people in this country. Therefore, I claim, even though granting to my Free Trade friends that this policy may have enriched the country, that its other effects, its social effects and its effects as far as the security and stability of the people are concerned, have been exceedingly bad. We found that out when the great War took place. I come now to the period of the great War. I said that we were agricultural week-enders as regards production. The War came and the submarine menace came. It developed, and the position became perilous about the year 1917. We suddenly woke up to the grave national danger that we had run by neglecting agriculture, and we made frenzied appeals to the farmers to plough up their lands. We appealed to them to grow as much corn as possible. We asked them to upset their rotation and to grow wheat. The Food Production Department was started under the very able and energetic direction of my Noble Friend the present Minister of Agriculture (Lord Lee), and it did effect a wonderful change. Something like 1,700,000 acres were ploughed up during the Food Production Campaign. We did not get back our 4,500,000 acres, but we got some of them back, and we did produce a great deal more food in 1917–18 than we had been producing. An hon. Member asks at what cost. At that time it was not a question of cost; it was a question of avoiding starvation. We come now to the present period. What are we to do? Are we again to neglect agriculture? Are we to let it slip back to the condition in which it was when the War broke out? Are we to say to the farmers, "You must shift for yourselves," in which case, without a policy, they will lay their land down to grass again or let it tumble down and the great efforts of food production will all have been wasted as far as the future is concerned? Can we afford to do it? I agree, of course, that
there is no more submarine campaign, and it is hoped that there will not be for many years.

Mr. J. BROWN: Or ever.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Or ever, but who can foretell the future? I certainly hope that it will be never, but I should be an unwise man if I said that it was going to be never. Some of the German submarines are under the sea, but another war may come, and are we again to be caught napping as we were last time? If submarines were dangerous during the last war, they will probably be infinitely more dangerous next time, and we may not have the opportunity of introducing ploughing-up schemes and growing the corn that we did on the last occasion. The danger in the future, if we allow things to slip back where they were, is great. That is not all. At the present moment it is undoubtedly cheaper to grow wheat and other corn crops in this country than to import them. The position as regards food supplies in the future is most dangerous. Russia for the time being is out of court and Hungary is out of court.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They have not been growing enough to sell any.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Quite as much as they want.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They have not enough to export.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. and gallant Friend does not seem to be alarmed when I mention Russia or Hungary, but take Argentina. Argentina is so alarmed at the present food situation that it has put practically a prohibitory export duty on wheat. The whole question is how are we to get our daily bread in the future, and for that reason, if for no other, we ought to encourage food production in this country. Our answer is this Bill. It is not to be called the farmers' charter. That is not the object of it. This Bill is in the nation's interests. From the point of view of putting our land to its best possible use, from the point of view of growing
every single ear of corn that we can, from the point of view of the highest cultivation, from the point of view of bringing up in the country as many of that hardy race of agrculturists that we used to have, from every national point of view a policy of some sort is needed, and the answer to the questions, "Are we going to let agriculture slip back," and "What is the need for this policy" is this Bill. The Government do not intend to let agriculture be neglected. They do not intend to let it slip back to the condition in which it was before the War, and they have therefore boldly taken the main headings of the recommendations of the Reconstruction Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Asquith), and have embodied them in a Bill of a comprehensive character which aims at putting agriculture in a position security and endeavours to make the best use of our greatest national asset, namely, the land of these islands. That is the object of the Bill.
The keynote of the Bill is security, security all round; security to the farmer who grows corn in the national interest by means of guaranteed prices, security to the agricultural labourer who has not been too well paid in the past that by means of the Agricultural Wages Board he shall have a minimum living wage, and security to the State by giving the State a certain control to see that the land is so cultivated, that the maximum amount of food may be produced for the people. Lastly, there is security of another kind to the farmer, or, rather, I should say greater security of tenure of his farm. There is not anything in the nature of fixity of tenure. We do not believe in it. We do not believe in creating dual ownership. We think that it works uncommonly badly in Ireland, and we are not going to repeat the experience here. We say that there should be complete security to the farmer for the capital which he embarks in his enterprise. If not, he will not do his best or put his back into it. There is particular need for dealing with this class of security to-day. Land sales are taking place extensively all over the country, due to high taxation, to the high cost of repairs, and to the fact that landlords under present conditions find it practically impossible to make both ends meet. These extensive sales have created a feeling of insecurity among tenants that never existed before. They had very little to
fear from the old landlords. On most well-managed estates the same families went on from generation to generation, and the last thing that a landlord thought of doing was to turn out a tenant unless it was absolutely necessary. There was a system, undoubtedly imperfect in theory and based on yearly tenancies, which in practice worked exceedingly well, but, with these expensive sales, with a new class of landlord, and with the land speculator, there has followed a feeling of insecurity among tenant farmers with which we are bound to deal. Therefore, without in any way introducing anything in the nature of fixity of tenure or dual ownership, but by giving greater security to the farmer for his capital and by making it very expensive arbitrarily to turn out a tenant we shall attain practically the same result and do an act of justice which is very much needed at the present time.
I now come to the principal Clauses of the Bill. The Bill divides itself, roughly, into two parts. The first part consists of a series of Amendments of the Corn Production Act and the second part consists of a series of Amendments of the Agricultural Holdings Act. We make the Corn Production Act permanent. It was a temporary measure. It was to come to an end in 1923. We make it permanent. The first result which strikes the eye is that the Agricultural Wages Board, which now depends upon a temporary Act, becomes permanently established in this country. I know that the Agricultural Wages Board has been severely criticised. I know that some of my hon. Friends do not like it. I know that many of its decisions have been challenged and challenged from both sides. The Agricultural Wages Board has had a most difficult task, and on the whole, it has performed its duties exceedingly well; at all events, it has prevented a large amount of agricultural unrest which would have taken place among the farm workers if it had not been in existence. I do not think, having regard to the altered value of money, that wages have been unduly raised in agricultural districts. When it comes to a question of hours, I admit that the matter is far more contentious, but the Agricultural Wages Board does not directly deal with hours. All that it does is to say that there shall be a certain minimum wage for a certain period of hours during the week. I do
not mind saying, if the Agricultural Wages Board did deal with hours directly and if it were prepared to establish anything like a rigid factory day for agricultural labour, that I certainly should not be in favour of making it permanent, because I believe anything of the kind would be absolutely ruinous to the agricultural industry. As far as it deals with establishing a minimum wage for a certain period of hours in the week, I think that it has done its work well, and it is only right that the agricultural labourers should get the security which is conveyed to them by the Agricultural Wages Board.
By making the Bill permanent, we continue the policy permanently of guaranteed prices for wheat and oats. At the present time there are certain prices put in, more or less arbitrarily, and based upon a certain scale. Those prices have not been in any way effective in practice, because the actual price ruling has always been a long way above the guaranteed price, and a curious thing is this—it shows how fallacious prophecies are—that the guaranteed prices for wheat and oats were based on the supposition that the price would go down. As a matter of fact, the price has gone up, and the present prices, namely, 45s. as the guaranteed minimum for wheat, and 24s. as the guaranteed minimum for oats, are absolutely ridiculous. We therefore propose a new plan altogether. We take a certain year, the year 1919, as the standard year, and we adopt the figures that were proposed by the Royal Commission, and which they thought were just below the actual cost of production, so as to guarantee a man, not a profit, but to guarantee him against any serious loss if he grew corn. The figures for 1919, based upon the cost of production, are 68s. for wheat, for a customary quarter of wheat, and 46s. for a customary quarter of oats.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How much is allowed for rent in that figure?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think rent is taken into account at all. In the variations which we propose we deliberately leave rent out. These figures are merely what is called the datum line. They are figures which would have been applicable to 1919, having regard to the cost of production then, but what is proposed is this, that each year Commissioners should ascertain the costs of production of that year, that is to say, whether they have
gone up or gone down since 1919. If they have gone up, the guaranteed price would go up proportionately, and if they had gone down the guaranteed price would go down proportionately. Any rise, any increase in wages, an increase in the cost, say, of fertilisers, an increase in the cost of machinery, or anything else, would get at once reflected in the guaranteed price.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Rates?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, certainly, but not rents. My hon. and gallant Friend is quite right. Rates are a very big item and a very rising item, and it is quite right they should be included, but we leave rent out of the matter, because it might be possible that there would be a collusive bargain between the landlord and tenant, the tenant agreeing to a rise in rent, knowing the rise in rent would be reflected in the guaranteed price; so rent is omitted. At all events, we establish this principle that instead of having an arbitrary figure based upon nothing but prophesy, the guaranteed minimum price, which is not intended to guarantee a profit, but which is intended to save a man against serious loss, and which is rather less than the cost of production, will move up or down according as the cost of production moves up or down. That system is made permanent. We have got to give security, we have got to give confidence, we have got to have regard to the psychology of the farmer, and it is no good bringing in a Bill and saying: "These prices will last for 5 or 10 years." We say this system shall last until Parliament otherwise decides. Of course, no Parliament can bind its successor. Parliament can always repeal or amend any Act previously passed, but we put this in, that if the guaranteed prices are to be terminated, they shall be terminated by Order in Council, and four years' notice shall be given. That is only fair, for this reason. A farmer makes his preparations, he has got to look ahead, he has got to consider his rotation, he has got to get his land ready, and we put in the four years' notice as a clear indication of the intention of Parliament to-day that a guaranteed price shall not be terminated unless four years' notice, equal to an ordinary rotation, is given to the farmer.
That is guaranteed prices; then there is the other point in the first part of the
Bill, namely, control of cultivation. If the State guarantees prices, the State must have some right of deciding whether a farm is being farmed in a manner which is consonant with the national interests. That matter is very important. I sometimes hear people say, "Why should not the farmers be made to grow wheat, why should they be compelled to do this, that, or the other?" Let me remind the House that the farmer is not risking national capital, but his own capital. He is a small capitalist, with all his capital in the land, on which he only gets a turnover once a year, and he is naturally very anxious about the use of his capital, and if, therefore, the farmer is to farm, not in the way that he thinks would pay him best and be most profitable to him, you must make it worth his while. That is the argument for guaranteed prices. On the other hand, if the State gives the guaranteed prices, we should have the right to say, at all events in emergencies and when we think necessary, that the farmers should grow what is most needed for the nation in the interests of the nation as a whole. We do not propose to exercise powers of control in any arbitrary, extreme, or absurd fashion. No doubt, during the War extraordinary powers were taken, ploughing-up orders were issued right and left, in many cases, unavoidably, mistakes were made, and we gave compensation where mistakes were made.
Now we propose a different system. We take the right to take action, first of all, if a farm is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, and I do not suppose anybody could object to that. Then we propose, secondly, that we may take action if we are satisfied that the production of food on any land can be increased in the national interest by the occupier, by an improvement or change in the manner of cultivation or using the land which is not calculated to affect injuriously the person interested in the land; and our plan is this. We do not propose to give compensation for mistakes, but we propose to give an appeal in the first instance against the ploughing-up order, or whatever it may be. The appeal would go to an arbitrator. He will decide whether the order is a sensible one or not, and whether it is likely injuriously to affect the person interested or not. If he decides it is not, the order will be made, and no compensa-
tion will be given; if he decides it might have an injurious effect, of course, the order will not take place, and the order will not be carried out pending the consideration of the question. Our object is this. We are embarking on a permanent policy. We do not want to have mistakes made, we want the matter to be fully and carefully considered. We do not want to embark upon a policy to change the cultivation which is going to do more harm, from the point of view of production, than good in the national interest. Therefore, every precaution is taken to see that any such order is carefully considered first. Once enacted, we do not propose to give compensation afterwards.
In the third place—and this is new—we propose to take action against an owner who does not carry out such repairs as are required for the proper cultivation of the farm. That particular proposal has been met with a good deal of criticism. It has been thought that we propose to compel the erection of new buildings, unnecessary buildings, and so forth, but that is not the case. It is simply a question of doing repairs, in the full meaning of the word "repairs," of existing equipment, buildings, whatever it may be, which are necessary for the proper cultivation of the farm. An order may be made upon an owner. If he does not carry it out, then the tenant may be authorised to carry out the repairs himself, and when he has carried them out he can recover the cost from the owner, or else, if that cannot be done immediately, a charge can be made upon the land. I venture to say in the interests of proper cultivation that that is a perfectly reasonable proposal, and nobody can defend the owner who does not carry out such repairs of farms as are necessary for proper cultivation. Those are roughly the proposals with regard to Part I. I now come to Part II of the Bill.

Mr. TOWNLEY: How do you propose to provide buildings, if you require the ploughing-up of grass land?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot go into all the details, but I am prepared to deal with that in Committee. Now I come to the second part, which deals with the question of the amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Acts. We do not propose anything in the nature of fixity of tenure, but we proceed upon the lines of
security of capital, because we believe security of capital will in its results lead to a great deal of practical security of tenure, and also we believe it is fair to the farmer who sinks his money in his farm, and the main provision of this part of the Bill is to be found in the Clauses which deal with what is called compensation for disturbance. Compensation for disturbance is found in the Act of 1908 and in the subsequent amending Act of 1914, but it is small in amount, and it does not apply in very many cases. We propose that that compensation for disturbance shall be greatly widened, both in its incidence and also in its amount. We propose that in every case where a tenant is given notice to quit for any reason, except that he is actually in default for not paying his rent, or farming badly, or something of that sort—and, of course, those questions will be decided by an impartial arbitrator—we propose that in every single case, except that, there shall be compensation for disturbance, and that compensation for disturbance shall be very substantial in amount. It shall amount to any loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding, with an addition of one year's rent. That is the proposal.

Sir G. YOUNGER: Is it limited to cases of capricious disturbance?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. Friend mentions capricious disturbance. I was dealing with the ordinary case where an owner gives notice to his tenant because he wants to farm himself, or where the county council buys for the purpose of small holdings; in all such cases, the compensation I have mentioned—any loss or expenditure directly attributable to the quitting of his holding, and one year's rent—will be given. But there is capricious disturbance. There is disturbance for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. I am glad to say it does not often happen. There are cases where tenants have been turned out for perfectly ridiculous and unjustifiable reasons, but I think there are very few such cases indeed, and by the old landlords I should say practically none. But we are dealing with new landowners, and we are dealing with the land speculator, who does not want to cultivate at all, who wants to buy and sell again with vacant possession, and that gentleman is doing a great deal of harm, and is inflict-
ing the very gravest injustice on many most deserving tenant farmers. In cases where the disturbance is capricious, and, where it is contrary to good estate management, where we should say it was thoroughly unjustifiable, in those cases the arbitrator may give, not only loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting, but as much as four years' rent in addition, which you may regard, if you like, as a penalty, but which, at all events, will make it a very expensive operation capriciously to evict a tenant.

Lieut.-Colonel A MURRAY: Where is the security in that case?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The security which the farmer has is that, first of all, most people would hesitate before turning him out, and, in the second place, he would walk off with a considerable sum of money, and very likely get a better farm than he had before. Let me proceed to the further point. It must be quite clear that this particular proposal would raise a difficulty where a landlord wished reasonably to increase a rent. That is a position of affairs which is very likely to arise, and, in fact, is arising every day. One of the great difficulties of farming in this country to-day is that the greater part of England is under-rented. Rents were brought down during bad times, and they have never been put up, and the reason for these extensive sales which have done so much harm in many respects, is largely because England is under-rented; and if we are to get the farms properly equipped, it is most desirable that the rents should be put up to an economic level. It would be most undesirable that, if a landlord puts up a rent reasonably and notice to quit is given, he should have to pay compensation. We propose, therefore, that he should not have to pay compensation for disturbance, if, in the opinion of an arbitrator, rent is reasonably raised, and if he is prepared to go to arbitration on the question. The converse will also be true. If a tenant farmer claims a reduction of rent, and the landlord refuses, and refuses to go to arbitration, and the arbitrator holds that the claim was a reasonable one, and as a result the tenant gives notice, then, though the tenant gives notice, the landlord will have to pay compensation for disturbance because he refused a reasonable reduction of rent.
So far I have been dealing with compensation for disturbance, but now I will come to compensation for improvements. The House will bear in mind that at the present time permanent improvements cannot be carried out by a tenant without leave from the landlord. That is to say, if permanent improvements, other than drainage, are carried out, the tenant cannot get compensation for them unless the consent of the landlord has been obtained. What is the result of that? In most cases no trouble arises, but there are cases where consent to permanent improvements is unreasonably refused. We propose that the County Agricultural Committees, which were set up in accordance with the Selborne Report, by an Act passed last Session, shall have the right to decide whether these improvements are reasonable or not. If they say they are reasonable, they can give consent to their being executed, and if they are executed, either the landlord may do them, in which case he may charge extra rent to represent the cost of the improvements made, or else, if the tenant does them, he will have a right to claim compensation, just as if the consent of the landlord had been obtained. Another point. It has often been put to us that it is very hard on a tenant who has farmed extra well, where there has been what is called continuous good farming, where by his skill, his enterprise, his expenditure of capital and so forth, he really has raised the holding to a state of greater fertility than ever existed before, and where he has farmed better than he is compelled to do by his agreement or the custom of the country, that he is to receive nothing. So the Selborne Committee suggest, and the Bill proposes, that they should recognise continuous good farming and we do that in this Bill, and an arbitrator may award additional compensation in a case like that, where there has been continuous good farming for a period of years. So far I have been dealing with the ordinary mixed farm.
I want to say just one word about a special case that arises in some parts of our country—I mean the case of fruit growing and market gardening. There can be no doubt about it that this is a form of cultivation which it is most desirable to foster and increase. It is an intensive cultivation of the soil. You often get three crops on the land at the same time. You get your standard fruit trees, you get your bush fruit between the
standard trees, and the crop on the ground, probably vegetables or strawberries. It is a very high form of cultivation, making the best use of our land in certain places—I do not say all over the country—far from it, but capable undoubtedly of extension—and in some districts there has been a remarkable extension, especially in the Evesham Valley, Wisbech, the Cambridge district, and in parts of the county of Kent and elsewhere. But there is a practical difficulty. In these cases the value of the produce, the value of the fruit trees, the value of all that the tenant has put into the soil, generally equals, and in many cases exceeds, the value of the land, and the pecuniary interest, therefore, of the tenant is greater than that of the landlord. The point is that if the tenant puts all this into the land; ought he not to get full compensation for it when he quits? I think the House will agree with me that he ought. The Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, passed a few years ago, provided that in the case of all holdings which had been agreed were market gardens, the landlord would have to pay out the full value of the fruit or vegetables to the tenant on quitting. But in practice that does not work, because, owing to the very high amount of compensation claimed under that Act, very few landlords now will agree to a holding being described as a market garden. The result is either the tenant will refuse to put in this intensive cultivation, or else, if he does, he will lose his compensation, and, of course, that operates to prevent the extension of this most desirable form of cultivation all through the country. In practice, the difficulty has been got over in various ways to some extent, but not fully. The most remarkable example is what is known as the Evesham custom. The Evesham custom is this: by the agreements which are made in that part of the country, where fruit is extensively grown, a tenant undertakes, if he wants to go, to introduce a successor. If he does, the successor pays out his compensation in full, and the landlord accepts; but if the landlord refuses to accept, or if the landlord gives the tenant notice, and does not provide a successor who will pay the outgoer, then the landlord has got to pay the whole compensation himself. That practice
has worked extraordinarily well in the Evesham Valley, and we propose to give it legal sanction, and make it the law of the land. This will be done with the greatest amount of care and circumspection. The matter will have to be inquired into by the Agricultural Committee, and the question will have to go, if necessary, to arbitration. But we shall adopt the system, and, therefore, the landlord will either accept the nominee of the outgoer, or else he will pay the full compensation himself.
There are, of course, many other Clauses in this Bill which deal with other details, both with regard to the first Part and the second Part. I omitted to mention, in dealing with the first Part, one Clause which, I think, is of great importance, where again we have the sanction of the Selborne Committee to support us. The House is aware that, under the existing Corn Production Act, and, under the powers of D.O.R.A., which we have used up to date, we can terminate a tenancy in cases where a farm has been thoroughly badly farmed. But we think we must go further. There are cases—I am glad to say not many—where an estate has been so badly managed that the production of food has been practically stopped, or, at all events, farming operations have been badly impeded upon the whole estate. We propose in that case to take power to take over the whole estate, to put in a receiver and manager—of course, subject to appeal to the High Court—in order that we may put an end to a state of affairs which causes a scandal in the neighbourhood, and wastes a vast amount of the best land in the country.
These are the main proposals of the Bill. Of course, I realise we are dealing with a very difficult subject. I realise we are dealing with matters that in detail are highly contentious. I am not going to claim anything like verbal inspiration in every word of the Bill. I am going to ask the House, especially those members who are interested in agriculture, and know much about it, to co-operate with us to endeavour to make this Bill as good a Bill as possible. I do not propose for a single moment to take up any rigid attitude, or to say we cannot accept this Amendment or that Amendment. I can promise that I will consider every single Amendment on its merits, and try to improve the Bill
in every way that we can; but on the main principle, I do claim that this Bill is a big measure of constructive policy. It is the first time a serious attempt has been made by the Government to put this, our most ancient and what is still our greatest industry, in a position of permanent security. I claim that the Bill carries out in the main the recommendations of the Selborne Committee. I claim that it carries out in the spirit, and almost to the letter, every word addressed by the Prime Minister to the farmers at the Caxton Hall last October.
I claim that it endeavours to deal with the policy as a whole; the first part being dependent upon the second. The various securities to the farmer, the labourer, the State are all interdependent, and the policy must be judged as a whole. I am not going to say that this Bill will of necessity make farming prosperous. Nobody can prophesy anything of that kind. All we can do in Parliament, and as a Government, is to lay down such conditions as will give the farmer the best possible chance. As I have said before, we do not propose this merely in the interests of agriculture. The interests of agriculture are indeed very dear to our hearts; we are most anxious to do what we can to maintain our rural population. But we propose this as a measure in the interests generally of the consumers of this country, and in the interests of our great urban population, to whom it is a matter of vital importance that we should produce every ounce of food we can in this country. In 1913 we were importing £200,000,000 of foodstuffs which could be grown in this country. I do not say that by a wave of the wand we can grow all the stuff we are importing into this country, but I do say we can grow a great deal more if we give those who are interested in the land the necessary security and confidence. It is because I believe this Bill will do this, because I think that, at all events, it is a great step forward, that on behalf of my Noble Friend the Minister of Agriculture who has worked with a single eye to bring forward a Bill which will be satisfactory to everybody interested in the land, I ask the House to give this measure a Second Reading and subsequently to endeavour to make it as perfect an instrument as we can for this great industry of ours.

Mr. ACLAND: Not for the first time is it my very pleasant duty to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill on the lucid and eloquent terms in which he has performed his task. He has described it to us from the point of view of a real believer in it, and in a spirit of enthusiasm which has made it a delight to listen to him. If I have one word of criticism, and only one, it is this: that at the beginning of his speech he cast what he said slightly in terms of our old controversies, and argued almost as if in the years before the War this country in general would have benefited by having protection for wheat. I do not believe that. The country has several times over said they would have none of it. At any rate, in this Bill, in the method which is adopted in the matter of prices, the right hon. Gentleman avoids those old controversies, and, whatever else we may say about this Bill, we cannot say that it is going to have any effect in increasing, in any possible way, the cost of the food of the people. On the contrary, if the expectations that he has raised before us in the matter of stimulating food production are carried out, it would have, and should have, the effect of lowering the prices of a good many things which our people want to consume. Therefore, without any question of reviving old fiscal controversies, I think what we have to consider is: is there now a real case for guaranteeing minimum prices for cereals? I agree that we ought not to look at this matter chiefly from the point of view of the farmer. I quite agree this Bill ought not to be regarded as the "farmers' charter." Indeed, I go further and say that if one really tries to inquire and goes about among farmers, there are two definite lines of policy amongst them about this Bill. Chambers of agriculture and other places where they talk a good bit are still rather dominated by the older generation of men who remember the old days of the nineties, and who are desperately afraid of going back to anything like the prices of that time. They have always asked for a State guarantee for prices, and, therefore, they are going on asking for it. But there are very many of the younger generation of farmers who are not much afraid of the heavy drop in prices and do not have much expectation that the guarantees of this Bill will become operative, and are able to adapt
their farming to any system of world-prices. Many of these would a great deal rather prefer to have to meet world-prices and to be free from interference by the county agricultural committees, and the State officials which they are afraid of under this Bill.
The important fact to be kept in mind is that this part of the Bill guaranteeing minimum prices does not matter to the farmer as much as one might think. In the long run he can adapt himself pretty well, by using modern methods, to any system of farming. He has learned the art of adaptation in respect to systems during the War, and if world-prices drop he can ranch on large areas in grass with a minimum of labour and a minimum of arable cultivation—a method of farming which will give him the least trouble, the least anxiety, and will be just as profitable to him as any other. In many ways it would give him an easier prospect than being forced and stimulated into arable farming with the county agricultural committee always treading on his tail and the agricultural wages board constantly expecting him to pay a higher level of wages. Therefore, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill has got to be looked at, not primarily from the point of view of the farmer, but from the point of view of the State. Does the State, under this Bill, get a sufficient quid pro quo for the liability which will fall upon the taxpayer under these guaranteed prices? Of course, in anything like normal times, and in general, there are very strong arguments indeed, and I think there are in regard to this Bill—against a State subvention under any circumstances to any industry. It tends from the fact that it is on the Statute Book to make those who may benefit by it rely more on guarantees from the State than on their own unaided efforts in prosecuting their own industry in their own locality. It tends to transfer their centre of industry and influence from their own farms to the House of Commons. It, too, makes candidatures in rural districts or districts affected extremely difficult, because the question always is, "Will you, if returned, pledge yourself not only to maintain but to increase the guarantee or subvention?" or whatever it is which is offered, and you therefore get a tendency, at any rate, that the Members returned shall be
pledged to increase the burden put upon the taxpayer in general in the interests of the industry in particular. All that is thoroughly bad. It introduces a bad element into politics, and it is entirely foreign to the best traditions of our politics and public life.
But I cannot think that we are justified in judging this Bill at the present time wholly from that general point of view. We have got to take things as they are, and we have to take them in connection with the Government which we enjoy. We cannot change that Government for the present, so we have got to see what its existence means, and we have to act accordingly. It seems to me that the matters of great importance in deciding on this Bill are these: that we have not got a Government at the present time which can be relied upon at all to keep us out of international difficulties. We have not got a Government which is really in favour of big measures of international disarmament. We have not got a Government which is honestly trying to establish the League of Nations. Therefore, we are likely to live, for many years to come, I am afraid, in a state of wars and danger of wars. It logically follows that our home food supply does become a matter absolutely of first-class vital necessity to our people. I believe that if things had been ordered differently that element in our situation might have been absent, and we might by this time have been so sincerely and wholeheartedly a nation altogether advanced on lines of disarmament and towards the League of Nations, that one really could have put out of account, as a matter of practical politics for the future, the recurrence of great crises in relation to our food supplies. I do not think we can do that now. There is this to be said, apart from the Governments and their policies: European food supplies are undoubtedly going to be very short for some years to come. There is no real sign of the nations of Europe settling down to production. We are going to want more to eat than we can get. So far as food supplies are concerned, we must, unfortunately, regard ourselves as being still in the War period. We should be right in regarding this Bill, in part, at any rate, as a war emergency measure. From that point of view, is it the best way of dealing with the food emergency of the world, in so far as the
Bill is put forward as a permanent solution of the agricultural policy of this country? I think I would say, "No!" The Bill, when we examine it, is not quite as permanent as it looks. So far as these guarantees of minimum prices are concerned, it says, as the right hon. Gentleman very well told us, that Parliament, if it wishes to stop the system of guaranteeing minimum prices, has to give four years' notice.
5.0 P.M.
The object of the Bill, no doubt, is mainly to try to establish arable rotation. Therefore, it seems to be fair enough that this four years' notice should be given if you intend to stop that system. I have no quarrel with the greater length of notice of which the Bill speaks. That system of guarantees will be stopped by an Order in Council passed on a petition from both Houses; therefore the agricultural industry may be inclined to think that unless another place as well as this House wishes to reverse the policy of the Bill, the Bill is permanent. If this House, at any rate, wishes to give notice to terminate the Bill, and the other place does not agree, it would presumably follow it up by with-holding supplies, which it controls, at the end of the four years, and no longer providing to make the guarantees effective. In fact, this House would have control over a continuance of the policy of guaranteeing these minimum prices. I think the agricultural industry ought to realise that unless this House is convinced that they are pulling their full weight in the national boat and in the great task facing the world in relation to the need for increasing food supplies, they may very likely have the guaranteed prices withdrawn. The House, I think, will expect another thing, and that is that this country and the rural districts of this country shall not only pull their full weight so far as food production is concerned, but shall also be made in every possible way the best place for rearing citizens, under the best possible conditions of work, healthy housing, and liberty. Granted that you must stimulate food production from the point of view of our duty to the world, and that in the Bill the House will be able to watch the success of that policy and take action accordingly, the question is, does the Bill give sufficient power for stimulating food production, and is a guarantee of maximum prices necessary as a return for the methods
adopted in the Bill. Clause 4 gives the county agricultural committees very considerable powers. The words that are so important are that these committees will have power to improve and to change the manner of cultivating or using the land. It will be very essential to maintain those words, and not allow them to be whittled down. Then there is the power to require repairs to be done which are necessary for cultivation. It seems to me that that is perfectly reasonable. There is another power which I welcome, and that is the power to take over mismanaged estates. The only point that can reasonably be made against this is that undoubtedly it will give a great deal of influence to the county agricultural committees, and, on the whole, I feel sure that if you are to have, and I believe it is essential that you should have, wide-powers to see that they were used, it is very much better to do it through committees which depend to some extent upon local opinion and which are composed of men who are trusted locally, who may be trusted to deal fairly between man and man, than to exercise those powers through central officials, although their work during the War has been excellent. Yet somehow they are universally distrusted by the farming community.
If you take powers to compel a man to adopt methods which will produce the greatest amount of food, I cannot get away from the fact that you must see to it that the system you require him to adopt will give prices within which he can make a living, and out of which he can pay proper rates of wages to those whom he employs. I think it will be said if you are going to guarantee prices for wheat and oats, why do you not include other things? I suppose the reply to that is that what you want is, first of all, not so much the actual production of cereals as arable cultivation. If you have once got the land under arable cultivation you can rapidly use it to get more production whether it is potatoes or cereals, and you can do this if you have the land arable whereas if it is only grass you cannot do it. I look forward to very great development of stock raising and dairying from arable land, and it would be a mistake to regard this Bill as being more in the interests of cereal production because, I think it will tend to increase production all round, and it does not matter whether it is milk,
butter, stock, cheese or potatoes as long as you get arable cultivation you really have a chance of production on a big scale. The idea of picking out wheat and oats is that they are an essential ingredient of every arable rotation, and you therefore take out wheat or oats as one of the essential elements of arable rotation, and you do it in the belief that it will make the arable rotation reasonably profitable and not unreasonable for the farmers to maintain.
As to the amount of the guarantees, from what I have said it is obvious that I do not think there is going to be a fall, or at any rate a very heavy fall in world prices for many years to come, and therefore I do not think we need anticipate that a heavy liability for some time is going to fall on the taxpayer in this respect, and I look upon these guarantees more as something intended to give confidence amongst farmers to create a more or less favourable atmosphere under which they may be led, and if necessity arises be driven, to increase food production more than anything else. The farmer is a much easier person to lead than to drive, and it will be easier to increase food production if there is something in the nature of these guarantees behind it.
May I refer now to a point which I made before, and that is if this Bill does get established, not only as a regrettable necessity in the time of food crisis, but as a part of our permanent agricultural policy, once you establish the principle that in return for a guarantee given by the State and received by the farmer the State has the right to interest itself in what every acre of rural England is doing, it is a necessary and desirable step to extend your interest from the agricultural to the social side of country life. The question of a rural survey, county by county, village by village, parish by parish, and estate by estate, of the social side of country life was sketched out in an introduction written by my father in the Land Report by the Committee which the present Prime Minister appointed some years before the War. The idea of that was that if the State is really to undertake the responsibility for agriculture through guaranteed prices, it will require to know not only that each acre is productive of food, but really is being used in the best way for the social life of the community, and that we shall under-
take the survey and establish an inquiry in each parish into questions of this kind, such as what chances there are for small men to get up to the position of a farmer from an allotment holder; to inquire whether there are unreasonable restrictions with regard to keeping pigs or poultry; to inquire whether there is any common land to help the small man; whether all the farms are in the hands of some particular family, as sometimes happens, where a labourer gets a black mark, after which he has no chance of employment in the parish; and also to inquire what opportunities there are of recretion and so on. All these things really build up social life and make existence for a free man a real pleasure and profit in a rural district. I know that the time for that is not yet; I regard this as a food emergency measure mainly, and I think those things will gradually come to the front. This Bill increases security of tenure, and if an estate is sold and the farm is not bought by the tenant, the landlord has to pay a year's rent in addition to a rather extended scale of compensation, that is, if he gives vacant possession and the man receives notice. If the farm does not continue to be occupied by the sitting tenant, the landlord will have to pay a year's rent.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: The landlord cannot give notice under the new Act.

Mr. ACLAND: That is so. I do not know how this Act dovetails in with the new Act, but the point made by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill is that in certain cases it applies where the tenancy is disturbed.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It applies in all cases where the tenancy is terminated without the tenant being in default.

Mr. ACLAND: It seems that where the landlord is compelled to sell, which is so common, that will have the effect of depreciating the value of his property quite considerably by as much as 5 per cent. or whatever the land is worth. I am inclined to think that under the circumstances of this Bill that is not unreasonable, but as a part of this Bill and part of the policy in other parts of the Bill, it seems to me that if the State is going to take powers to stimulate and change the manner of cultivation it is reasonable for them to take these additional powers to give this extra security.
It is right, if you are going to compel a farmer to maintain or increase a certain sort of cultivation, to add a provision giving him a greater certainty than he now possesses of enjoying the results of the kind of farming that you compel him to adopt, and to say to him, "We will give you greater compensation if you are not allowed to remain in tenancy or possession of your farm." If those who represent the farmers in this House try to whittle down, in their own interests, the powers of the Agricultural Committees to control the method of farming, then in fairness to the landlord the power which this Bill takes to give compensation ought to disappear or to be whittled down also, because the farmer cannot be expected to have the jam without the powder. If this is not done, the farmer should not be asked to assent to considerable powers being taken to control and direct his cultivation.
The only other point I want to make is that before this Bill is passed, I think this House and the country will require something in the nature of a definition of what it is that the Government is driving at in the way of food production. The county committees will want to know the nature of their task, and the ordinary voters and taxpayers of this country will want to know more definitely than they know now what they are really going to get in return for their liability under this Bill. I do not believe that this measure is going to result in heavy liabilities on the taxpayer for some years to come, but it does contain a guarantee to make up the price of wheat and oats to a definite standard, which will be worked out every year by experts. What are we going to get for that? Is it going to be simply requiring a man to keep down nettles and thistles? Does it mean that you are going to take action in regard to these few things in different parts of the country, where an estate is badly managed? If so, the people may well say, "The game is not worth the candle; we are not going to get any improvement in production, and we do not see why we should spend this extra money." There is really, for some years to come, every sign of a European or world food shortage. The right hon. Gentleman stated the difficulties in regard to Argentina and other places, and that we are determined that the arable area shall be maintained at a certain
pitch, and that, at any rate, there will be some external standard by which to judge of the success of the policy of guaranteed minimum prices. We had to watch what the counties did in regard to a big Bill passed affecting agricultural holdings. We had to judge whether they were doing their best, and it was the present Prime Minister who was the chief advocate for more ginger to be applied to those counties which were not doing their best. We want something in the nature of defining what the "bit" is which the Minister of Agriculture expects the counties of England to do. This thing is a bargain, and I think, in the long run, the nation will only make this bargain a permanent part of its agricultural policy if it is convinced it is getting value in methods of food production and in the amount of food produced. For that purpose we really do need to have at distinctly defined stages periodical careful reports as to the way in which the different authorities are carrying out their task, such as we had in regard to the Small Holdings Act and such as we now desire to have in respect of allotments and other matters. In conclusion, I may say that I shall not be here when the Vote is taken on the Second reading of the Bill. But I should not vote against the Second reading if there is a well-defined, definite degree of food production fixed which the nation may expect in return for the guarantees which it is called upon to give. But unless there is that definition it will be extremely difficult for me and my friends to vote for further stages of the Bill.

Captain FITZROY: In view of what took place this afternoon, and the consequently altered position in regard to the allocation of Parliamentary time, I hope we may have an assurance from the responsible Minister in charge of this Bill that we shall have another day on which to debate this Motion for its Second Reading. In the few remarks I propose to make this afternoon I speak entirely on my own responsibility. I do not claim to represent anybody but myself, as the agricultural Members of this House with whom I am accustomed to associate myself have not had sufficient time or opportunity to get together to consider this Bill and to crystallise their views for or against its various details. In the remarks I pro-
pose to make I shall deal very generally with the Bill, and not go into questions of detail. I think the Government have made a great mistake in delaying until what I may call the last moment the introduction of this Bill. They have thereby lost a great opportunity. Political memories, indeed, the memories of all, are notoriously short; but had the Government taken the great opportunity which arose as soon as possible after the War was over, they would have taken advantage of the public feeling with regard to the supply of food grown in this country, and thus have had an opportunity which I am afraid they will never get again. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry of Agriculture on the Treasury Bench in the remarks he made with regard to the origin of this Bill. No doubt, the difficulties which confronted us at the time of the submarine menace brought home, as nothing else could have done, to the Government, the dangers which we were living under as a result of having neglected the agricultural industry in this country for a generation, thereby reducing the food supplies of the country to the smallest possible proportion. No doubt that is the origin of the Bill.
The only way in which we can contemplate the Bill is to see whether we think it will, if it becomes an Act of Parliament in its present form, be likely to increase the food production of this country. That is the only way to look at this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did say that the Bill should not be looked upon as a farmer's charter, as it was a national Bill to meet national needs. That is really the only point from which one can consider it, and if we consider it in that way we can only consider it from the point of view whether it will achieve the results at which we are aiming. I will go so far as to say this, that, as far as I understand the Bill, and I speak for myself only on this point, if it passes into law in its present form I do not think it will have the slightest effect on increasing the food supply of this country. On the contrary, it will have an exactly opposite effect by creating a general feeling of uncertainty throughout the whole agricultural population, and therefore I welcome the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman
that he will very favourably consider any Amendments which are proposed to this Bill. I should have liked him to go even further than that, and to assure us definitely that he will accept drastic Amendments. As far as I am concerned, unless he will do so, I cannot promise him my support of this Bill on the Third Reading stage.
The principles underlying this Bill are perfectly sound. Those principles are four in number. First, there is the guaranteed minimum price; then there is the principle of the guaranteed wage; thirdly, there is the principle that the country will be secure of good cultivation; and, finally, there is the proposal to give greater security for the capital of those engaged in the industry. If we can be quite sure that those four principles will really be carried out in the provisions of this Bill, I think we might be content to believe that it will do something to put agriculture on a sound footing and to increase the food supply of this country. But, as far as I can understand it, none of these four principles will be secured by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech this afternoon, spoke of "the farmer." I should like to ask him what he meant by "the farmer"? Does he only mean the tenant farmer, or does he mean the farmer who is owner as well as occupier? I think this Bill carries on its face too much of the hall mark of the National Farmers' Union. I do not want to speak in any derogatory way of that body—very far from it. I have the greatest respect for it. I have had many dealings with it. It is, however, a society set up for their own protection and their own advantage.
But under the conditions under which agriculture has been carried on during recent years, a change has taken place in the direction that there are many more owner-occupiers of land, and, as far as I can see, the owning-occupier of land under this Bill get no advantage and no security whatever. There are proposals by which the tenant farmer may get his repairs done for him at someone else's expense, but what about the owner-occupier? He is just as important to the production of food in this country as is the tenant farmer. The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that in agriculture there are three distinct classes engaged in the industry. There is the owner, there is
the occupier and there is labour. The class considered most in this Bill, the one that as a matter of fact if you look at the question from a fundamentally sound point of view is the least necessary for the industry as a whole, is the tenant farmer. Look at the history of agriculture during the worst times through which it passed at the end of last century. How was it kept going? It was not by the tenant farmer. He had his rent reduced to pretty well nothing at all. There were many owners of considerable estates who had to occupy their whole estates and to farm their own land. The people who carried on agriculture in those bad times were the owners and the labourers of this country. Those are the two classes which are given the least consideration in the whole of this Bill. Unless some further consideration is given to them, I am convinced that the Bill will do harm, and will lead to less production in this country by giving less security than is the case now.
Let us consider the question of the guaranteed minimum price. I do not pretend to know upon what basis the prices suggested in the Bill are laid down. They are taken from the Report of the Royal Commission which was set up to consider this question, but, after a very careful reading of the Royal Commission's Report, I cannot make out on what ground the price of 68s. for a quarter of wheat is fixed. Certainly the majority of the Commission, who made that Report, did not give any reasons for it themselves. It is obvious that, if that were, the minimum price fixed under this Bill, it could not have the effect of inducing any farmer to cultivate one single more acre of wheat than he cultivates now, and I doubt very much whether it will induce him to keep in arable cultivation that which he is now growing. What about the agricultural labourer? Does anyone suppose that wages in this country are going down to any great extent, and does anyone wish it? I do not know of any class of the community that is anxious in the near future to lower the wages of the agricultural labourer; but what is to be the position of the patriotic agriculturist who is asked to increase the food production of this country, if wheat should go down to anything like the minimum price, and he is called upon to pay the wages which now exist? It is true that there is an attempt to set up a parity between wages
and prices, and that it is said that the minimum price is to be fixed upon the cost of production, which, naturally, includes wages. How does that provision of the Bill affect the labourer? He is given no security that he will be paid a wage at all. You give him security that he will be paid a minimum wage when he is in employment, but you give him no security that he will receive any employment at all.
I do not pretend to criticise the methods of those who specially claim to be looking after the interests of the agricultural labourer. I should be the last to attempt in any way to tell them what is their business. It seem to me, however, that the result of this kind of legislation, making permanent the Wages Board, if it operates in the manner in which it is operating now, will be that in the very near future the question will not be one of getting wages, but of getting employment. The only way in which agriculture can be carried on at the present time is by employing the fewest possible men of the highest possible skill. In cultivating a large arable farm, a farmer used to have, say, 20 horses, and to employ 10 men. In the future he will have 2 horses for doing a certain amount of carting, and he will keep two highly-skilled mechanics to do his ploughing with a tractor. The result will be that there will be three men employed where there were ten before. That is all very well for the farmer, but I cannot see that it is to the advantage of the agricultural labourer. In this Bill we are promised four years' notice of any cessation of the minimum price, but we are not told that, when the minimum price comes to an end, the Wages Board will come to an end at the same time. It is obvious that, if the Wages Board continues when there is no minimum price, a large number of men will be put out of employment in agriculture. I do not think that that is to the advantage of the agricultural labourers of this country, and for that reason I do not see that this Bill gives them any security whatsoever. We are told that the Bill gives the country—that it to say, the taxpayer, who may be called upon should the minimum price come into operation—security that the land shall be properly cultivated. It is very desirable that, if the taxpayer is called upon to contribute to the minimum guaranteed price,
some guarantee should be set up by which it can be ensured that the land is properly cultivated, that is to say, to ensure good husbandry. As the Bill stands, it not only claims to ensure good husbandry, but it claims the right to dictate to the farmer the methods by which he shall bring about that good husbandry—what crops he shall grow. You cannot make any man in this country, whether he be a farmer or anyone else, carry out a definite form of operation in a certain way by coercion, and for that reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that that part of the Bill will be dropped, and that any compulsion that may be put upon the cultivator of the soil will be confined to the question of good husbandry, and will not extend to the methods under which he carries on his cultivation.
So far I have been dealing with Part I. of the Bill. Part II. deals with the question of giving greater security to the capital of the tenant farmer. Several remarks have been made, I think by both the speakers who have preceded me, as to the fact that up to the present, on good estates, farmers have had all the security they require. On good estates, I think, that is undoubtedly the fact. No landowner, as far as I am aware, has ever either dismissed or wished to dismiss any good farmer from his estate, and I should be very much surprised if an authentic case of that kind could be given. I make no complaint that further security is given in this Bill, because I do not think that any landlord who manages his estate in a proper manner would suffer in the least from any of the provisions in Part II. of this Bill. To my mind, however, that is not the point. If we want to increase food production in this country, if we want to carry on the agricultural industry in the best possible manner for the good of the country, and to increase its production, it is not so much a question whether the good landowner would be benefited by the Bill or not. What we want to do is to attract fresh capital to the land. At the present time nothing is more necessary to promote good husbandry in this country than the attraction of capital. Agriculture has been suffering all through the last 50 years because no one has been, shall I say, foolish enough to put more capital into it than there
already was. We want fresh and more capital put into the land, so as to improve the farming position and produce more food. Does anyone suppose that the kind of regulations that are contained in Part II. of the Bill is going to make anyone put money in agricultural land as an investment? It seems to me that it will have exactly the opposite effect, and that, if this Bill becomes law, anyone considering the investment of any money they might have would say, "At any rate, I am not going to invest in agricultural land, because I am not master in my own house, and have no real security. I am at the beck and call of some Committee which is set up in the county to dictate to me the methods by which I am to manage my estate." I have no particular complaint to make about Agricultural Committees. No doubt some are good, and some are bad, as is the case with all bodies made up in a similar way. I question very much, however, whether it is to the interest of agriculture in this country that so many and such large powers should be put into the hands of Agricultural Committees, unless the safeguards against their abusing those powers are made very secure. In cases where they can dictate to landowners as to what some people may consider to be improvements, but which may not be considered by others to be improvements, their decision should be subject to an appeal to some other authority. Unless this Bill be amended in the directions I have indicated, we are, I repeat, running the risk, if it is passed into law in its present form, of defeating the very objects we have in view, and of stopping the food production of this country instead of increasing it. I am certain that, as this Bill stands, it will not result in one single extra acre of land being put under arable cultivation, and I am pretty sure that the process, which is, unfortunately, going on now all over the country, of putting recently ploughed up land down to grass, will continue. That is being done now, under present conditions, with a pretty high price for wheat, and with that experience I think we ought to be very careful that we do not encourage the taking of more land out of arable cultivation. I know that there are those in this country who hold the view that, in this industry as well
as in other industries, the cure for all evils is some form of nationalisation. I am pretty convinced that the people who put forward that remedy have not a very clear idea in their own minds as to what nationalisation means, and have a still less clear idea of what it would mean if it were put into operation. I do not mean to say this Bill is nationalisation, but there are elements of bureaucracy in it which at any rate tend in that direction, and I verily believe that it is this playing with the fringe of nationalisation in all these various different directions which is really responsible for a great many of the troubles from which we are at present suffering, and I do not want that to creep into agriculture as it has done into other industries.
With regard to prices, it is quite easy in such an industry as the railway industry to put up wages to any extent and promptly to put up fares. How long that will go on I do not know. It cannot go on for ever because people are getting to travel less and therefore it may defeat itself in that way. But railways have a monopoly. Railway transport must go on, and you are not competing with any foreign country. It is the same with coal. They can put up the cost of production and you put it on to the consumer. You cannot do that with agriculture. You cannot apply the fringe of nationalisation to agriculture. You have to compete with the whole world, and our difficulty is that on the one side you have an industrial population clamouring for cheap food and on the other side an industry which cannot provide it under those conditions. And while we all want to give the agricultural labourer a good wage and see no reason at all why he of all the workers of the country should be sweated in order to provide cheap food, in other industries sweating will not be allowed. You will not allow the railways to be sweated in order to provide cheap trips to Blackpool. Why should you allow the agricultural labourer to be sweated to provide cheap food for the same people. It is one and the same thing. The only thing is that in the one case you have no competition whereas in agriculture you have the competition of the whole world. Therefore under these conditions you must to a certain extent have some other means of bringing about the result, that is by interference with the industry—by setting up an uneconomic system of guaranteed prices,
and guaranteed wages. For the first time this Bill sets up a parity between cost of production and guaranteed prices. But let us be very careful that in doing that we do not set up a bureaucratic machinery which paralyses initiative in the industry and prevents private enterprise doing what it can. I hope before the Debate comes to a conclusion we shall be given an assurance that the Government are prepared not only to consider sympathetically but drastically to amend the Bill in several directions, otherwise I cannot promise my support to the Third Reading.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: It is with some amount of hesitation that one rises to take part in the Debate, if only because of the very complex nature of the subject. But its importance, perhaps, is an additional reason why an endeavour should be made to express opinions from the different points of view. There is, perhaps, one point upon which there will be general agreement, and that is the fact that it is a question of very great importance to the country, and we on these Benches recognise most fully how important this question is to the country as a whole. From the purely Labour point of view the past condition of industry has been very black. It has been the one industry in the country which has stood out, so far as low wages are concerned and the bad conditions under which men have to live connected with the industry, and therefore naturally we feel that if anything can be done towards changing the conditions and putting the industry upon a footing which will ensure to the labourer conditions of life that harmonise with his responsibilities this House will be engaged upon a very useful task in bringing that state of things into existence. But I am not sure that the Bill is going to take us very far in that direction. One recognises that there must be prosperity in the industry for any section in connection with it to have any standing worth speaking of, and I feel that the principles upon which the Bill is founded are not of a character which are going to permanently improve the industry in the way the promoters seem to think. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Fitzroy) touched upon the question of land nationalisation and warned us of the dangers which might be concealed within that term, but one cannot help thinking that if a Bill of this description
is needed, which seems to recognise the great importance of the land to the nation, whereby we have to establish such elaborate machinery in order to determine the particular relationships of those associated with it because of its importance, one fails to understand why land should remain in private ownership as against the principle of public ownership and control. If land is so important, if agriculture is an industry which should cause such grave concern, if national interest is to be the basis from which we approach the subject, surely the land itself ought to be under the control of the nation in order that its use might be determined upon lines that follow and completely meet the national interest. Therefore I cannot conceive how it is possible to go on for any length of time dealing with the problem of agriculture if it is going to be viewed from the standpoint of national interest unless the nation gets control of the land which is essential for the industry. I was somewhat surprised that the right hon. gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) made very little reference to the recent Royal Commission. He seems to base the various features of the Bill upon a previous inquiry, although it is rather significant that the figures, so far as the guarantee is concerned, are taken from the Majority Report of the recent Royal Commission. I wonder whether the absence of any definite reference to that Commission is due to the fact that it never was intended to serve any useful purpose when it was appointed.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Any omission there may have been on my part to refer to the Commission was quite unintentional. On the contrary, in my view and that of the Government, the Commission served a most useful purpose. First, it supplied us with the figures, which we adopted precisely as they are; and secondly, it suggested the plan of varying the guaranteed prices according to the cost of production from year to year, and I wish to pay my tribute to that most important contribution made by the Majority Report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. SMITH: I am glad to know that the Government takes that Commission seriously. But as one who had the privilege of serving upon it I have never been persuaded that it received from the Government the treatment it deserved.
There was great delay in fixing it up, and then, after members had accepted the invitation extended to them the terms of reference were altered without any consultation with any one of the members composing the Commission—and that is not the usual method, I hope, of treating these bodies—and then the Commission was rushed along in its work because it was urged that the matter was of such great importance that an early pronouncement was essential. The Commission when it commenced its duties was fully under the impression that it had to determine whether the principle of guarantees should or should not become the policy of the country. Had the Commission been left free to determine that point, guarantees would not have formed part of its recommendations.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I do not agree with that, and I was another member of the Commission.

Mr. SMITH: If the hon. Member feels that I am stating anything contrary to the facts he will have an opportunity later of correcting me. I know as a positive fact that one member of the Commission told the President of the Board of Agriculture that if it had been an open question for them to determine he would not have signed the Report in favour of the principle of guarantees. Other members of the Commission definitely stated that the policy had been decided by the Government and all they had to do was to accept it and fill in the details. The statements were made by members of the Commission in the discussions that took place leading up to the drafting of the Report. If that Commission had been left free to determine, on the evidence that came before it, whether or not guarantees should form the policy for the future, the majority of the Commission would undoubtedly have recommended against the policy of guarantees.

Mr. CAUTLEY: There was no single witness against guarantees.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. SMITH: Therefore one is rather concerned to know exactly what has prompted the Government to continue this policy, because, after all, it is a policy that they have the responsibility for and not the Royal Commission. We are told the cause of anxiety at the moment lies in the fact that land is being put down to grass and reference has been made at
different times to the fact that much of the land which was ploughed up during the War has gone back to grass. That was inevitable having regard to the fact that much of the land that was ploughed up never ought to have been ploughed up, although the orders were made. It was land entirely unsuited for arable cultivation, and was bound to fail. Merely because from the practical point of view of agriculture that land is now reverting to grass is no argument to bring forward to-day as evidence that the industry is in any sort of decay or needs the methods of this Bill by which it can be propped up. Reference has been made to the large number of acres that were ploughed up during the War. It is known to every person who sat on the various Agricultural Committees, or at least to a very large proportion of them, that the principle upon which they operated in regard to the breaking up of land was not the suitability of the land, but rather the basis that every farmer should do something in that particular respect, and land that might have been ploughed was allowed to go by while land that never ought to have been ploughed was broken up, with the result that it must inevitably revert to grass at a very early period. That was stated in evidence by a number of witnesses who came before the Commission, and, therefore, in itself it cannot be taken as a substantial reason for saying that the industry is needing in any way the props that are sought to be given to it by this Bill.
We are told that another reason why this land is reverting to grass is because the farmer has no confidence in the future; that he does not consider he is justified in continuing in his industry in the way he would like, because of the absence of any security or conditions which enable him to meet the future with any amount of confidence. There was no evidence brought before us on the Commission which would warrant that contention. It is true that farmers argued in favour of a substantial guarantee, but when they were asked to produce their balance sheets in order that the position might be properly and adequately tested they refused to do so. There is one particular farmer in this country whose name was mentioned to me as one who had kept accounts for years, and that if he gave evidence before the Commission he would
be only too willing to submit his accounts whereby he could test the whole question from the practical point of view. He came before the Commission as a witness, but the only figures he produced were figures from one side of the ledger—figures of costs. When I asked him if he would produce the other side in order that we might test the position, he absolutely refused to do it, and stated that the position had been so abnormal during the past two years that to produce his balance sheet would not be a fair position to be put in. At least, we ought to have had that knowledge. It is not unfair for us to ask for both sides of the balance sheet to be presented if we are to be able to express a proper opinion upon the matters affected thereby. When we come to witnesses who are in a position to do it and who admit that they have kept accounts for a period of years, and fairly accurately kept them, they refuse to submit a balance sheet whereby we could test the position from the standpoint as to whether or not agriculture was a remunerative industry or whether it was likely to continue one. We found in the evidence that farmers preferred to pay income tax on double rent rather than on their profits, even where they kept accounts. In one instance a farmer was prepared to pay income tax on the basis of £1,200, although he denied that he made £1,000 profit. In his figures it was shown that on 66 acres of wheat he cleared clearly a profit of £346. With evidence of that description it is difficult for anyone to say that agriculture as an industry has reached such a stage that it is necessary to subsidise it in the way provided by this Bill.
There is another test that we can apply so far as the prosperity of the industry is concerned. I know it is very difficult to prove these matters, but there are general indications which can be taken. A great deal of land has been sold during the past two years. It has fetched abnormally high prices, and in a very large measure it has been purchased by the farmers themselves. Where men are prepared to invest the whole of their capital in land it shows, not a lack of confidence, but a very great confidence in the future. One gentleman, well-known in the agricultural world, told us that he had sold thousands of acres of land, and that 90 per cent. of it had been bought by the farmers. This obtains all over the
country, in practically every county. We have been informed by the daily Press of farmers holding up sales until they received an assurance that they would have a chance of buying their own farms. If that is correct, and I suggest that it is, it does not show a very clear indication that they have any lack of confidence so far as the future is concerned. There is another aspect of the case. A society, well-known to Members of this House, the Agricultural Organisation Society, has for one of its objects the securing of land for small-holders and returned ex-service men, and if the records of that society are referred to, I believe it will be found that they have the greatest difficulty in getting land. Whilst farmers on the one hand are arguing that they are farming at a loss, they are not prepared to surrender the land in order that other men might have a chance of cultivating it. Consequently, this society, through its representatives, has come in contact with opposition in that respect.
I am not convinced that guarantees in the way suggested are a right and proper basis on which to re-establish agriculture. How is the guarantee contained in this Bill going to affect land that will not produce more than three-quarters of wheat per acre? Does anyone suggest that it is going to bring any more land under wheat because of the security we are going to give to the farmers? If the aim and object of the Bill is to increase food production, the representative of the Government ought to show how it is to take place, and how it is going to bring a measure of prosperity to the industry. The possibility of production varies considerably as between soils. One witness gave evidence that he had some land which produced nine quarters of wheat per acre, and other land which only produced 2¼ quarters per acre. How are you going to adjust the position between these different classes of land? How are you going to make it possible for land of that description to come into arable cultivation as a result of the guarantee in this Bill? Look at it how I will, I cannot see how this proposed guarantee is going to bring into cultivation, so far as wheat production is concerned, a single acre more than is cultivated at the present moment. I do not see where the security comes in in that respect. We were told, in respect of some land, that to grow
wheat upon it they would want a guarantee of 100s. Another witness told us that with 75s. he could pay existing wages and make a very good profit for himself. Therefore, further evidence is needed, in order to show that this principle is going to produce the results that are aimed at.
One of my objections to the principle of the guarantee is that it provides no incentive for better methods in agriculture. It will be better for us as a nation instead of approaching this question of food production from the standpoint of this Bill, if we approach it from the standpoint of trying to get a higher return per acre of the land. I am astounded that in a Bill which we are told is a permanent measure so far as policy is concerned, there is no reference to agricultural education, research, transport, co-operation, or the abolition or reform of the game laws. All these are matters which have a very distinct bearing upon the industry of agriculture, and yet in a permanent measure there is no reference to any one of them, although I believe I am correct in saying that in other countries where they are concerned with food production these are aspects to which they have turned their attention in more recent years, by improved educational facilities, by research work, by organisation, and by the better marketing of produce when it is produced. Witnesses told us that produce was wasted to a very large extent by the absence of adequate transport, and I have been told recently of cases where through the lack of organisation in the marketing of produce, strawberries grown within two miles of a town in Kent are carted to that town, railed to London, bought in Covent Garden by a retailer from that same town in Kent, and they are then carted to the station, railed back to Maidstone and sold there.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Too much transport.

Mr. SMITH: Yes, but I was giving this as an instance of a lack of organisation in marketing.

Sir F. FLANNERY: It is the same with fish.

Mr. SMITH: Yes, there is no doubt about it. It seems lamentable that at this time of day we are failing to concentrate our minds upon these questions, and that instead of paying proper atten-
tion to educational research, organisation and co-operation we are pretending to help the industry by establishing this principle of guarantees which will not bring a single acre into cultivation nor add a single quarter to the wheat production of the country. A further fact was this in regard to those strawberries to which I have referred. They were retailed two days after they were gathered, in a condition that made the grower of them ashamed of them, and the price I am told nearly made him weep. You have middlemen coming in. In agriculture particularly you ought to see that the middlemen are eliminated as far as possible. Every county market town to-day keeps going a large number of agents, auctioneers and dealers, all living on the industry, and to-day, when we ought to be applying our mind to some method of organising the industry, not merely in producing the food that is wanted, but in distributing it to the consumer, without too many people intervening—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or too many inspectors!"]—I quite agree. That is one of my objections to this Bill. I cannot conceive how farming can be carried on according to order, but I cannot see how you can have grants unless you have something of that sort. The two things more or less go together. If the nation is going to pay its money to those who cultivate the soil, then it must have some measure of control over this public expenditure, but I cannot conceive how it is possible for the land of this country to be cultivated by inspectors—that is what it will mean in the final result. You may form your county committees. They will be composed of busy men. The mere fact that a man has been prominent in agricultural matters in the county will be a reason for choosing him, but he will not be able to give a great deal of time to deal with these matters, and the final factor will be the wishes of the officials. I do not believe that farming can be carried on with, or that farmers will tolerate, the position of having to cultivate their land according to what they are told by the inspector. I believe that we ought to insist on the rules of good husbandry, which is another matter. Once the form of cultivation has been determined, then in the national interest it is quite right to insist on that form of cultivation being carried out. But here is another point, and how far is this Bill
going to deal with it? One of the witnesses connected with the Department who had a great deal to do with the investigations carried on in the country during the War told us that there was an enormous amount of second-class farming. How are you going to alter that by this Bill? If a man shows that he is making a reasonable attempt to farm his land and not neglecting it in any way that permits the restrictive Clauses to become operative you can do nothing with him. It would be far better at present that we should be doing something towards improving the class of farming from another standpoint and helping the industry in a fashion that will not put clogs upon it.
If there ever was a time when we want to give agriculture a chance and when conditions permit this being done, it is now. The right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading told us that there is no wheat coming from Russia or from Hungary, and that in the Argentine restrictions on the export of wheat are being imposed. That means that the price of corn must keep up, and during those years when prices are going to be high is the very time when you ought to be able to develop a system of agriculture upon educational lines and possibly upon lines which are self-supporting, by co-operation and things of that description. Other countries are developing upon those lines. I was surprised at some figures in this respect. In Prussia, with a population one-ninth smaller than our country, there were 5,664 teachers of various kinds for agriculture in 1,227 district establishments. These are the official figures for 1914. The United States is a new country compared with our own with not perhaps the same kind of problem, and yet we find them applying themselves to this question of agricultural education.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: So are we.

Mr. SMITH: It seems to me to be absolutely inadequate for what is wanted. It is far better to develop upon those lines and on lines in harmony with them than on the lines contained in this Bill. In 1906 the United States spent £2,000,000 on agricultural education and research. In 1907 they had 4,000 students in agricultural colleges; in 1908 they had 10,000, and in 1914 they had 69,000 students and 6,317 instructors at 69 colleges, and, whether as the result of this work or not
I do not know, but according to the official returns of the production of wheat the yield of wheat increased from 14.5 to 45.9 per cent. up to the issue of the 1908 report. If these other countries find it so necessary to pay so much attention to this question of education, research work, organisation, co-operation and all that educational work that goes on, we cannot escape the same lines of procedure. It is rather strange that in a Bill which lays down a permanent policy there is no reference whatever to these questions so far as the future is concerned. With regard to artificial manures, is the Government able to assure us that the by-products of some of our biggest industries are being developed to the fullest extent? I have been informed that in the industry of gas production it is possible to produce the enormous quantity of potash. At any rate, I think we ought to know whether the by-products of some of our greatest industries cannot be used to help agriculture, and if we can get these artificials here it will be a distinct advantage as against importing them from other countries. I want to know whether we have a system of research going on which is developing to the fullest extent the resources of the country whereby the industry can be helped in this way?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not want to interrupt, but I must explain, when I am asked why these matters as to agricultural education are left out of this Bill, that the reason is that the work is being done without the necessity of putting them into this Bill. If my hon. Friend had been present during the discussion on the agricultural estimates, he would have realised that we are row spending a very large sum of money by administrative action on agricultural education and research, and that it is quite unnecessary to put these matters into this Bill.

Mr. SMITH: It may be possible that I am to blame for not being fully acquainted with all that was considered on the Agricultural Estimates, but I suggest that there is at this moment no adequate provision for developing education and research upon the lines which I am suggesting now. What I feel in regard to the Bill is that the principle of guarantees upon which the whole thing
rests is a most insecure basis for the industry. At best it can be termed a political basis subject to alteration from the political situation of the country and change in the near future, and is it possible that the industry as a whole will feel any real security in a basis which is purely political and liable to be changed following a General Election or something of that description? What we ought to aim at is to give industry an economic basis. It has been said that the rents should go up to an economic level under a Bill that has not got a sound economic basis. If the Bill will achieve what is claimed for it, you are going to make agriculture prosperous on the basis of State subsidies, and upon that basis you are going to establish future economic rent. That is not sound, because once you have succeeded in doing that and getting the rent of the land higher, you have recreated your problem and the majority of the guarantees and rents that suffice to-day will have to be arranged upon an entirely different basis.
Some of the people connected with agriculture claim that the average profit per acre is not more than 10s. It is easy to imagine 10s. an acre going on to the rent of the land as a result of the industry being bolstered up in this way. If that takes place, where is the security there? You have got the whole problem over again, and up goes your guarantees and up goes your rent again, and there is no end to the process. The right hon. Gentleman may say the rent does not enter into this question, but you cannot ignore it. You may claim that it is not to be a factor taken into consideration so far as the adjustment of the guarantee is concerned; but once your guarantee fails to have this effect it ceases to serve the purpose for which it is established and you have got to adjust it. Otherwise it serves no useful purpose. Therefore, if in the development of the industry land goes up as a result of this system of guarantee, you are not solving the question of agricultural prosperity. You are merely carrying the problem to a higher level. It is because I believe that it fails completely in that respect that I regret, so far as I am concerned, that I cannot support this measure. I would have liked to see the matter approached from another standpoint to secure the
industry by developing a system of transport and offering all the assistance on the lines which I have indicated. It seems to me to be quite right that we should provide assistance of a character that the industry cannot provide for itself, and which ought to be national in its aspect. I believe that if we approach the subject from the point of view of developing education, from the point of view of organisation, of co-operation, of improved transport and of the reform or the abolition of the game laws, and review the question of local taxation, we shall do better. I notice right hon. and hon. Gentlemen smile at my reference to the game laws, but it is the fact that some farmers say those laws are a very big handicap to them in their business, and after all, it is inconsistent to urge upon the country the necessity of a greater production of food if at the same time you allow the produce to be destroyed by game. If we apply ourselves to those lines of development, I believe we could help the industry. It would be possible, in the first place, to increase the production per acre, and, secondly, we could effect economy in marketing produce and in the purchase of the implements and materials necessary, and ultimately we could lead up to the elimination of all those middlemen who now come between those who produce and those who consume. The Bill fails completely to help the industry in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has claimed, and I regret that I cannot support it.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: I understand that the main obect of this Bill is to put this country in a position to supply a larger proportion of its own food than it was able to supply during the recent war. That seems to be the main issue before us. I believe that the main principles of the Bill will be generally approved when hon. Members appreciate what they mean. Landowners will be called upon to give encouragement to good husbandry, and at the same time they will have a remedy against the farmer who makes no effort to cultivate his land efficiently. The farmer gets legislative sanction to security of tenure, and full compensation in case of disturbance. The labourers get Government recognition of the Agricultural Wages Board as a permanent institution. I was rather surprised to see that in some directions this
Bill has been referred to as the Farmers' Charter. I think the address given at Reading last week by the Noble Lord (Lord Lee) who is Minister of Agriculture, must have dissipated that suggestion. The Noble Lord made it clear that when put into operation the Bill will be as advantageous to the consumer in urban districts as it will be to the farmer. It seems to me that the Bill gives evenhanded justice all round. In the past the farmer has been very much handicapped. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading gave us a historical record showing the way in which agriculture gradually receded in this country during the years 1860 to 1879. That was because the farmer was faced with foreign competition, and, the market being flooded with foreign wheat, he was unable to make any profit out of his home-grown wheat. In those days, in my recollection, there was a great agitation in this country for some subsidy to enable the farmer to grow his wheat at a profit, but at that time the farmers were not bold enough. They were very lethargic and took no action to push their own interests, and those of us who tried on the platform to arouse some sort of public feeling in the matter could never create an atmosphere, because the farmers would not combine, and, as has been said, did not trust each other. Now the farmers have formed a union, and are alive to the importance of combination.
I think that the proposed guarantee giving farmers some security to produce wheat will have a very sound effect in increasing the acreage under arable cultivation. That, at any rate, is the opinion of all the farmers in the large agricultural division which I represent. The main feature of their demand struck me as being that they should have some guarantee that while they may not make a large profit they should at any rate be guaranteed against loss. In dealing with the question of the supply of national food—it is a national question—surely no one can dispute the fact that the farmer is entitled to ask for that guarantee in order that he can produce our food without loss. The difficulty in the past has been that we have given too much encouragement to the importation of foreign flour. There is nothing in the Bill in regard to the importation of wheat, as opposed to flour. I am told that it is much easier to tranship wheat,
that is the grain, than to tranship flour, because the space occupied is not so large. You get this advantage, that if you import wheat you restore an industry which is almost dead. When I was a boy one found in almost every village a thriving man, the miller. He does not exist to-day, because the constant importation of flour has destroyed the industry. If we imported wheat and could get it ground in this country we should have the benefit of the offal, and that would give us a greater supply of food for pigs, and at any rate we might get rid of one curse, American bacon. There are plenty of people who would be very glad to take up pig-breeding if they were encouraged in some way.
While I recognise that the fixed minimum price established under the Bill is intended to secure the farmer against loss, there does not seem to be any guarantee that the price will be fixed on a par with the market value of the same quality of imported wheat. The farmer wants to be protected in some way or other against the large quantity of wheat imported from abroad, which practically pushes him out of the market. I quite agree with the observations of the hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches (Mr. Smith) as to the importance of effecting improvements in marketing methods. I suppose the House is aware that in almost every county in England to-day there are being formed associations of farming interests, which I hope will enable the farmers to get their goods to market on a better system. While that is true, we must look for some better support from the Minister of Transport in regard to the conveyance of produce. We have been told over and over again that cheaper facilities would be afforded for the transport of agricultural produce, but nothing has been done so far. During the War there were lines of light railways which were of great value in agricultural districts. These were torn up and the rails and materials sent abroad. These railways are not being relaid, and the result is that hundreds of acres of arable land are passing out of cultivation because the people have no means of getting their produce to market. That is a subject which might have been dealt with in this Bill. The provision that the farmer must have
12 months' notice to terminate a tenancy is fair, and removes a very great grievance, but I see no provision to deal with the requirement that the tenant must give notice in writing within two months of receiving notice to quit or forfeit his claim to compensation. That has been a burning question in many districts. Thousands of farmers have been displaced from their holdings, and in many cases the fact that they are not lawyers and are not careful in some details of their organisation has caused them to fail in regard to the notice and has deprived them of any claim to compensation. I think that that might be considered in connection with this Bill. There have been many cases of great injustice to the tenant owing to non-compliance with this Regulation.
The Bill gives an incentive to good farming, but it also confers on the Government the right to interfere in the conduct of a man's business. I think that requires very serious consideration. The appointment of this Agricultural Committee which has to decide whether or not the farmer is cultivating his land according to the proper system, seems to me to raise a very difficult and dangerous position. It is true that the farmer has the right of appeal to an arbitrator, but it is conceivable that the man who is farming the land knows better than anyone can tell him what he can get out of his land, and if you bring in outsiders, who are not acquainted with the actual conditions under which a man is working, it is conceivable that both the Committee and the arbitrator may decide that he is wrong, while all the time the farmer may be perfectly right. I think there should be some precise definition given to the phrase "national interest," which seems to be the governing factor in guiding the Committee. The improvement of transport to which I have referred is most important in connection with market garden produce. I was on Salisbury Plain during the five years of the War, and there we had great difficulty in getting vegetables and fruit into our camps. It so happened that I was in a position to assist with transport, and in the small district to the north of Salisbury Plain we were able to organise by a system of village helpers the collection of market produce and fruit from the various market gardens and allotment holders in the vicinity, and we paid as much as £800
or £900 per week to those small people for produce which otherwise would have been wasted. Would it not be possible in this Bill to bring in some scheme for the collection of this garden produce and fruit of the smaller growers. Every allotment holder and market gardener grows a great deal more than he is able to get into the markets owing to the want of transport facilities. If we could organise some way by which all that could be carried to market, it would be an immense saving to the nation and would go a long way to assist in the present shortage of food.
With regard to the agricultural labourer, I think that the scheme which is put forward under the Agricultural Wages Board for giving the labourer a living wage is quite sound, but it has to be borne in mind that whilst the labourer gets full consideration, the fact that he is drawing these high wages must be considered in fixing the price of wheat. I am not at all sure whether a system of limiting the hours of the agricultural labourer in any way is sound. I have found in consultation with farmers in the district which I represent that the limitation of an eight hours' day for agricultural labourers would be disastrous in many cases. A cowman, for instance, told me it would be impossible to confine his day to eight hours. He had to milk in the morning and again in the evening, and if he were limited to an eight hours' day and another man had to deal with the cow in the evening, who was going to be responsible in case anything went wrong? The labourers recognise that. Therefore I think that the agricultural labourer should be kept outside all this legislation as regards hours. I do not know if it is necessary, but if it is there should be some provision releasing agriculture from the provisions of a Bill of this kind. Generally, I think that the farming interest, and the landowners, farmers and labourers generally, will approve of the Bill as an honest effort on the part of the Government to do something to promote the interests of agriculture. For that reason I hope the House will give the Bill a Second reading, and that any Amendments will be such as not to interfere with the scheme for assisting the progress of agriculture in this country.

Mr. J. GARDINER: I desire to speak from the point of view of a tenant farmer, as I happen, as far as I know, to be the
only tenant farmer in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I endeavoured as far as possible to find out the accuracy of that statement before I made it, and if it be wrong I withdraw it, and am delighted to know that there are so many tenant farmers in the House. At any rate, we want to approach this subject, not from the point of view of the landlord or the tenant farmer or the labourer, but from the national point of view. Although I have been a tenant farmer all my life, and hope to die one, and have been so without the purchase of any land, I want to say, so far as the landlords are concerned, the fine old aristocratic landlords we have had in Scotland, I have no complaint to make. I found them to be perfect gentlemen and, so far as they were able, ready to consider on every possible occasion any complaint or difference which came between themselves and their tenants. Looking at this whole problem, surely it is the duty of the House, irrespective of party, to do its best to procure a Bill satisfactory to the country and likely to bring about the desired results. I presume that the most important thing to be considered is how to procure the greatest amount of foodstuff in this country. The ideal, of course, would be that Great Britain and Ireland should produce sufficient cereals to meet the requirements of the people in the country. Some people will say that is absurd and a dream beyond any chance of realisation. I am not quite so sure about that. If you take the acreage under cultivation in the year 1871, and if you remember that there were then none of the modern appliances for producing additional foodstuffs, I have always had the dream, though I hope it may become an actual fact, that if the land of this country was intensively cultivated and every acre of it possible was put under crop, we might be able to produce such a quantity of foodstuffs as would surprise those who have been pessimistic on this subject in the past. This is a Bill which is supposed to materialise the promise made by the Prime Minister at the Caxton Hall meeting, where he said:
There are two cases in which the farmer and the labourer stand in need of protection. The first is where the farm is sold over his head to another landowner and where the new man may either want it himself or want to sell it or make money out of it. Therefore it is proposed he should be secured in his tenancy unless the land is
sold either for public purposes or that a case can be made out for his being a bad cultivator. The second is the case where notice to quit is given in order to raise the rent. What is proposed is when notice of that kind is given the tenancy shall not be affected, but the new rent shall be fixed either by agreement between the parties or, failing agreement, by an arbitrator appointed for the purpose.
7.0 P.M.
I do not think that the Bill fulfils the promise in the letter and in the spirit. I quite frankly admit that Part 2 is helpful in this direction, but it is not security of tenure and the expression "fixity of tenure" has never, so far as I am aware, been advocated by any person, whether tenant or landlord. Nobody desires fixity of tenure. What is wanted is security of tenure with certain conditions attached. The Bill itself is complex and difficult, and to the ordinary agriculturist its interpretation is exceedingly difficult. The Agricultural Holdings Act, which was called, as this Bill is called wrongly also, the "Farmers' Charter," provided certain compensation for unexhausted improvements, but I think that for every £1 paid to farmers for claims of that kind some thing like £1,000 went to lawyers for legal expenses. It led simply to a crop of litigation, and I fear this Bill will continue in its steps. The agriculturists of the country wanted something far more simple. One hon. Gentleman said that this Bill had too much of the National Farmers' Union flavour about it. I am speaking more from the Scottish than the English point of view. The complaint of the Scottish Farmers' Union and of the other organised bodies which represent labour in Scotland is on the very opposite lines, namely, that they were not consulted about the Bill, and had no opportunity of indicating what their desires were, and therefore they can be in no way responsible for any portion of the Bill. I think I am speaking correctly the sentiments of the Scottish National Farmers' Union when I say that they have no desire for Part I. of the Bill. The only thing they ask is security of tenure without guarantee, and they are perfectly willing, as I understand, as individuals, to run the risk of anything that may come to agriculture in the days ahead, but many of these men desire to look at this, not only from their own point of view, but from the national point of view. They say that if the Government consider it is absolutely
necessary that every acre of land that ought to be cultivated should be under the plough and producing foodstuffs, and if that is the policy, and they say they want to protect the country from any possibility of shortage in the future, then rather than imperil the supply of foodstuffs they would accept the first portion of the Bill, not because they desire it themselves or love it, but in the national interest. In regard to Part II., if it is to be accepted and supported by the House and the country, it must be very materially strengthened. It is quite true we hear about compensation at the rate of one year's rent and the possibility of it being at the rate of four years' rent. Having read the Bill carefully, I think there are quite a number of loopholes which would enable the avoidance of any such award. Therefore, in Committee we must be very careful what is done to make the position absolutely clear and distinct.
Some of the omissions from the Bill are rather remarkable. In the Bill there is, for the first time, a reference to the fact that some estates are not properly managed and administered, and I am going to couple with that the other side, and that is that many of the farmers do not cultivate the land in the best possible way either. If there are landlords who neglect their duties, there are also tenant farmers who do the same. I am exceedingly glad that on these two points the Bill does give some remedy, and I look for an improvement in this direction in the future. Take the case of a landlord who, through stress of circumstances, is reduced financially. It is a sad case, and we feel for that man. His family has been in possession, it may be, for centuries, but he gets to the place where he has got no money. Have you seen such an estate? I am sure I have. As the money was not available, practically there was a deterioration of buildings, fences, drains, everything that was essential to the cultivation of the land in the best possible way, and the landowner himself got poorer, the tenant farmers got poorer and were in a poorer position to pay the agricultural labourers, and all round it was a pitiful exhibition. However hard it may be for such a man to give up being the proprietor of such an estate, for his own sake, I think, as well as in the national interests, the Bill makes it possible that that man should be dealt
with. In Scotland, speaking generally, the cultivation is more advanced than it is in England generally. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I admit that, so far as certain portions of England are concerned, which are practically the Garden of Eden, nothing better could be desired than the cultivation there attained, but there are great areas of England that are not so cultivated, and the proof of that is in the quantity of grassland that you have lying in this country uncultivated, when it ought to be under the plough. Even in Scotland, we have many farmers who have not cultivated as they should do, and they should not be retained in the occupancy of the land.
The Bill in these two cases is a helpful Bill, and should in the future do considerable good, but is it in the interests of the country, a country where the land is exceedingly limited in extent, that so much land should be possessed by one proprietor? It may be that the land is in different parts of the country, one estate far away from another, and it is under the management of what we in Scotland call a factor and what you in England, I believe, call an agent. There is one Noble Lord in the adjoining House who owns three or four very large estates. If you go to one of the estates, everybody connected with it will tell you that he is the nearest approach to an angel that ever lived, and if you go to another of his estates, they will say he is just as near a devil as it is possible for a man to be. The whole secret is that he has so much land that he is not able personally to give it the attention and supervision that the ownership of land in these days demands, and the man who is administering in each case is a different type of man. The owner himself, no doubt, wishes every man, either as a farmer or a farm servant, to enjoy every comfort that it is possible for them to have. I know that a great many people assert that the owning occupier—I am talking now about the one that farms and owns the land—very soon finds himself in a state of bankruptcy. I have heard that stated in this House and elsewhere, but I cannot admit it at all. My experience has been that the moment a man was able to purchase a farm and put his whole heart and soul into the business, that farm began to improve, and that the experienced agriculturists who drove along the road or travelled along the railway began immediately to discover that
improvements were being made there and an intensive state of cultivation that had never existed before, and I think that for the safety of this country we should have, not a few large landowners, but a multitude of occupying owners. Security of tenure, in my opinion, is not at all antagonistic to that idea. You have got the two avenues of escape, the one by purchase and the other by security of tenure.
If the ideal that I have in my mind, namely, that this Bill should be made such that it would be possible to encourage cultivation in such manner that this country of ours could produce its own cereals were attained, what about some of the other products? If you are going to guarantee wheat and oats, why not guarantee the other crops and produce of the farmer? I am assuming just now that the House accepts the principle of the Bill and agrees with Part I of the Bill. If so, why is it that such produce as potatoes, meat, milk, and other things should not be included? The foundation of all agriculture is green crop. I am speaking again more from the Scottish point of view than anything else, but I think that applies to England as well as to Scotland. The largest sum of money that is spent in relation to any portion of farming is certainly connected with potato growing, and this is the only crop that you can grow in this country to an excess. We cannot only supply all that is required, but in a favourable year we would have an immense surplus. It is also the most precarious of all crops, and you have evidence of that in the two years which have just passed. At the present moment you are suffering from a scarcity, and you do not know where to get the next lot of potatoes. They are exceedingly scarce, but last year you did not know what to do with them, and you had to compensate the men who grew them. If there is such variation in that particular crop, and if there are such wonderful possibilities, supposing there is a superabundant crop this season, it would be no impossible thing to think of potatoes going back to the old level of 50s. or 60s. per ton.
Again, if you want the foodstuffs, and if that is the national viewpoint, you have to consider that; but whether you agree with my argument or not, I do assert, without fear of contradiction from the men who really know agriculture, that
you are either in equity to guarantee all or to guarantee none. Individually, I do not want a guarantee; I am absolutely prepared to do without it as an individual, but, at the same time, it must in equity apply all round. Wheat is a thing we hear about constantly, but there are large tracts of the country where wheat cannot be grown. I heard an hon. Member making a very fine speech from the Labour benches, and he pointed out that there were certain places where you could not grow more than three quarters of wheat. That is absolutely true. I happen to be a farmer on a farm where that holds good, but that does not mean that we cannot grow nine quarters of oats or ten tons of potatoes per acre. If the land is not suitable for wheat, it is suitable for some other purpose, and if you are going to recompense the man with good land who is growing wheat, you must think about the man with poor land who in adverse circumstances can grow a crop sufficient for the requirements of the country. One hon. Member said that the farmers were constantly grumbling about their losses and at the same time were purchasing their farms. I am going to say to this House that if there is a farmer who knows his business who does not admit that during the last few years he has been making a profit, then either his veracity is not altogether accurate or he has been a very poor farmer.
The hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke of the lack of capital to develop the land was absolutely right. The farmers of the eighties had not two shillings to rub on each other. Those of us who can recall those days and remember the condition of the farm labourer and of the farmer would never wish our friends to pass through such a period again, and I understand the object of this Bill is to make such an experience impossible, and therefore I welcome the intention of the Bill. Whether it will bring about what it intends to do or not remains to be seen. Farmers now are not only desirous of putting their brains and their money into the business and developing the land in the highest possible way, but many of them are anxious to purchase their holdings, and this would be one solution at least of the whole question. Are you in this Bill making it easier for amicable arrangements to come into being between the parties interested, or are you not? I
would like to see the possibility of litigation eliminated as far as possible from this Bill, and mutual arrangements that are so beneficial fostered as much as possible. The three parties connected with agriculture are the landlords, the farmers, and the farm labourers. We have heard about the wages board and about the guarantee of wages. In my experience, and the experience of my friends in Scotland, the minimum wage has not affected us one single bit, any more than the guaranteed prices in the Corn Production Act have, and if this Bill should become law to-morrow I do not anticipate for a moment that the guarantee in the Bill will become a necessity for many years to come.
To go back once more to the three parties connected with agriculture, I will begin with the labourers and recall the facts as they were in the 'eighties and prior to the 'eighties. It is not so long ago since in parts of England the labourers' wages were anywhere from nine shillings to eleven shillings per week. It is not so long ago that in East Anglia these wages were the rule and not the exception. We do not want to go back to anything of that kind. I want to see the labourers—and again I am speaking from the Scottish point of view, because the conditions in Scotland are absolutely different so far as the labourers' houses are concerned—housed in cottages that are worthy of the class of men who work on our farms. We hear in these days about slackers, and about the fact that many of the tradesmen have set up a ca' canny policy. I am glad to assure this House that my personal experience is along a different line, and that our labourers are working as they never worked before, and are putting heart and soul into their work, and doing it well. It is quite true we are giving them substantial wages, and very much higher than the minimum wage, but a good workman is always worthy of a good wage. About the landlords, I wish them, from the bottom of my heart, well under this Bill or without the Bill, but I would like to point out that many of the men who occupy very large estates or grass lands have never lifted a finger to improve these grass lands of 200, 400 or 1,000 acres in extent. The grass has been deteriorating ever since I can recollect. I remember one particular estate where grass land let at £5 an acre when newly-
laid down, and has been allowed to deteriorate many years, and in pre-War days it was impossible to get 7s. 6d. an acre for it. Great tracts of land in the country are in the same condition. Surely the grass land ought to be improved as well as the arable, and I do consider that the landlord or tenant, whoever he may be, holds the land as trustee of a sacred trust in the national interest, and, whether he be a landlord or a tenant, he ought immediately to cease holding land that is not used in the national interest. I believe that the Prime Minister, when he made his Caxton Hall speech, meant every word he said. As to whether or not he has had his meaning interpreted truly in the Bill, I have very grave doubts, but, at any rate, we will wait until the Committee stage.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I am intensely disappointed with this Bill. I had hoped the Government would have seized the opportunity to have brought in some simple, easily understandable, and effective measure for improving the production of cereals in this country, while at the same time providing a means of dealing with the difficulty caused by the establishment of a Wages Board. They have done neither. In my firm opinion not a single acre of land will be brought under cultivation by this Bill as it now stands. On the contrary, it will not even stop the diminution of arable land that is now going on in this country, while at the same time I regard it as the death-knell of the tenant farmer. In saying that I do not speak on behalf of the tenant farmers. I have no authority to speak for tenant farmers, but in what I am going to say to the House I speak as a tenant farmer of many years' standing, and I speak as one who has got the farmers' interests at heart, who has made more speeches in recent years in this House in the interest of tenant farmers than almost any other Member, who, at any rate, has appreciated their difficulties, and who, with the co-operation of the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy) and the hon. and gallant Member for Faversham (Lieut.-Colonel Wheler), introduced the Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Bill, which would give more security of tenure to tenant farmers than any measure introduced in recent years. I also speak to-night as
a member of the Agricultural Commission, and I would like the House to understand exactly what that Commission did report. The majority reported that guarantees were essential, and that these guarantees must be on some sliding scale. A majority of that Commission reported against any interference with the farmer's initiative or power to farm his own land in his own way, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill why the Government have departed from that majority Report? No majority reported in favour of the figure of 68s. I personally, think it is not the right figure, and I am perfectly certain the majority of farmers—in fact all farmers—in this country are certain it is not the right figure.
Having said that, may I ask the House to consider what was the problem before the Commission, and what is the problem before the House? Owing to the establishment of the Wages Board by the Corn Production Act of 1917, the principle was first established that wages should be fixed by persons outside the business altogether, and on a basis that had no reference of any sort or kind to the selling price of the articles which the men and their employers were engaged in producing. I agree with that principle. I am firmly convinced that in no other case was a minimum wage so necessary in the interests of the farm workers and in the interests of society and production as it was in the case of farms and the agricultural industry. But it must be borne in mind that, in establishing that basis, and in the carrying out of it, wages have been raised from 19s. in 1914 to an average of 45s. 7d. for the ordinary labourer, and, I think, about 51s. 5d. for the skilled man. That does not include a further rise of 4s. which has just been contemplated, and it does not allow for the reduction of hours that has been secured by the farm-worker, because the hours have been reduced from 60 in the summer and 54 in the winter to 50 in the summer and 48 in the winter, and if, therefore, you take into account the other ten hours which the labourer does not work, you will find that, on the whole, the wages for farm-warkers have been increased on the average about 200 per cent., or to three times what they were in 1914. The first problem we had to decide on the Commission, and which has to be decided here, is, how are those wages to
be paid if agriculture is to continue on the lines it hitherto has done? In considering that problem we have also to consider this. I, amongst others, realise that it is essential in this country that arable production shall continue, and be increased as far as possible, first of all as a protection against starvation in time of war; secondly, it is established beyond controversy that for every 100 acres of land under arable cultivation four men are employed, whereas for every 100 acres under grass cultivation only one man is employed. Therefore, the more arable land you have cultivated in this country the greater the source from which you can recruit your Army, if you ever need to make good the wastage of war, or from which to recruit your industrial army in time of peace.
Another point which weighed very considerably with many members of the Commission, including myself, was that, in view of the serious position of the exchange, the more produce you could grow at home, the less shipping would be required to bring food here, and the greater the effect upon the exchange. I was astonished at the only other representative in this House who sat on the Commission suggesting that the issue before us was not whether guarantees should be continued, and what the guarantees should be. It is the only issue upon which we really ever came to any conclusive decision, and there was not a single witness before us—and we sat from 20 to 25 days—who ventured to say that the English farmer, if he continued to grow cereals, could pay these wages fixed by the Wages Board without a guarantee, or was likely in the future, if there came any fall in prices. Labour representatives who sat on the Commission were challenged many times to produce some expert or practical witness whose evidence could be cross-examined, as we knew at that time that Labour was opposed to guarantees, and there was not one witness called or tendered by them who came to show us in any way how these wages could be paid by a farmer unless there was a guarantee to secure him in case of a fall in prices.
The Commission therefore came to the conclusion—and rightly came to the conclusion—apart from the minority, that guaranteed prices were necessary, and
that the Corn Production Act should be continued. Of course, no one suggests that the Wages Board should be discontinued, and this Act continues the Wages Board. My Memorandum, which accompanies the report of the Commission, I made too long, but I was determined that townsmen who read it should thoroughly understand the agricultural position. The findings of fact therein, I think, it will be agreed, were thoroughly judicial. That being so, we were agreed, and rightly agreed—and I think the House will agree—that a flat-rate guarantee was impossible. We had to look after the interests of the taxpayer. If you gave a flat-rate guarantee and there was a sudden slump in the world prices the burden on the taxpayer might be very high. So the obvious thing was to secure the protection of the taxpayer. While I am on this point, may I digress for a moment to say that the main consideration after production was the necessary protection of the taxpayer? If you once get the right method of fixing the guarantee it will be well, because the Corn Production Act provides that the guarantee shall not be payable if there has been negligent cultivation. The Board of Agriculture and the Agricultural Committees have express power under the Corn Production Act of refusing to pay that guarantee or any part of it if they think fit and in case there has been unsatisfactory cultivation. The wages question made it difficult for us to fix a basis for the guarantee. A flat-rate was ruled out Everybody was agreed it must be ruled out, because the cost to the taxpayer might become enormous. The only alternative to that was a sliding scale that would fix the figure for each year. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, I venture to say, when he suggests that he is fixing a sliding scale. He is doing no such thing. The figure is fixed by the worthy gentleman that he is going to propose shall be entrusted each year with ascertaining the cost of the growing of the wheat and the oats. I tell the House that that is an impossible proposition.
You cannot in this country find out what is the cost of growing an acre of wheat or oats. The evidence before us differed as to the cost of growing an acre of wheat from £4 16s. 5d. to £21 5s. 6d. The evidence—
given by respectable men, all trying to do their very best—as to the cost of a quarter of wheat varied between the figures of £1 6s. 5d. and £7 3s. 6d. I find as a fact that it is impossible to fix the average cost of growing wheat and oats in this country owing to reasons into which I shall not go at any great length. The twelve members of the Commission arrived at the figure of 68s. as being the average cost, apart from interest on capital and remuneration to the farmer—not including profit—as being the average cost for the year up to the growing harvest of 1919. I fixed 75s. for a quarter of wheat, which would give to the farmer the net cost of growing the wheat, including some remuneration for himself and the interest on his capital, but no profit. Therefore by a different process we arrived at practically the same figure. It was proved certainly that the capital involved is at least from £15 to £20 per acre at the present day. If you take interest on that at 5 per cent., at 15s. or 20s., say with 8s. to 13s. per acre for remuneration—which is only a slight remuneration—you will find that that 28s. for the four quarters of wheat, which is to be assumed the quantity grown, you get 7s., which makes the difference between the 68s. and the 75s. Therefore you may take it that in this Commission which sat for twenty-five days the majority arrived at the proper figure, as near as can be, for that particular year.
The Bill proposes that the 68s. only shall be taken as a basis, and that these worthy gentlemen are to find each year what variation there has been in the cost. That is a blind. They cannot do it. The right hon. Gentleman was asked how much was included for rent. He said, "Nothing." He is quite wrong. There was something included for rent, otherwise you would not have got the cost of an acre of wheat at all. It is true that there is a provision in his Bill that you must not add anything for variation in the increase of the rent, otherwise it would be said this Bill was endowing the landlord. There is something to be said for that. But until it is known how much of the 68s. represents rent, how are these three gentlemen who are to be appointed to tell how the figure varies? How much is allowed for labour in the 68s.? How much for the keep and hire of horses? How much for fertilisers and all the various items that go to make up the cost? There is not a single item specified, or the propor-
tion of it! Yet these three persons are ordered by this Bill to ascertain how much the increased cost has been and to fix a price. It cannot be done. There is not a single farmer who would have any confidence or belief in the price fixed by these three gentlemen.
Look at the matter again. The farmer starts his plans for growing wheat in February or March. The bulk of the land upon which he proposes to grow wheat is then fallow. It is sown in the autumn and grows during the following year till the harvest. It is sold between August and the following January or February. The Bill provides that these three men are to act when harvest is completed, which it is not until the end of October, and then to consider all the different items of increase on the cost during the time this wheat has been growing, so that they cannot possibly arrive at a figure till towards the end of the year or the beginning of the next year. The right hon. Gentleman really asks the House to believe that farmers will be induced to grow more wheat at a figure that they have no means of ascertaining or estimating, the price being fixed by somebody in whom they have no confidence, and nearly two years after they have taken their steps to grow their wheat.
I am not vain enough to believe or to ask the House to follow my suggestion, but I did make a suggestion in my report which was simple and which would have satisfied the farmer, because it would have given him a considerable idea of what he was going to get. One thing that was proved before us was—and I think the proof was practically satisfactory to everybody—that on a cereal-growing farm the cost of labour equals about 40 per cent. of the cost of the other outgoings; that about 40 per cent. is rent; the rates and interest on capital make up the other 20 per cent. I rule out the land and the rates, although they are likely to vary later very considerably. But the other two items are confirmed by many accounts, not only in one year, but over a series. If the labour bill is equal to and varies with the other, then if you have the initial price fixed, you can make a sliding scale which will make the price of wheat vary according to wages. I suggested, and I do how sug-
gest, that a very much better system would be to make the price of wheat follow the average minimum wage—the guaranteed price for a sack of wheat should be the average weekly minimum wage, and that for every shilling rise in the minimum wage there should be a 2s. rise in wheat and 1s. 6d. in the price of a quarter of oats. An old standard well known all over the east coast of England, is that the labourer's wage should be the value of a sack of wheat. That was right in the old days, and if it was adopted here it would show an improvement in the labourer's position. The actual wage is more than the minimum, and when agriculture is prosperous it is likely to be still more so, and, in addition, the labourer having ten hours less work to do for the minimum wage than in the old days, he has this ten hours, if he wishes, to augment his wages by working overtime. Agricultural statistics show that four men are employed on every hundred acres of arable land. They show that one man is employed on every hundred acres of grass land. Four men on the hundred acres with a shilling per week comes to, roughly, £10 8s. Of this hundred acres you have thirty under wheat and thirty under oats, and working that out at 2s. and 1s. 6d. you will find it gives £23. Half of this is very near the increase of wages and the other half the increase of other outgoings. The scheme I propose would have the merit of simplicity, the merit of telling the farmer exactly what he would have to pay, and letting the authorities know how much land was likely to come to under cultivation.
I should like to make one or two observations about other parts of the Bill—the provisions relating to the enforcement of cultivation or control. We have had a White Paper setting out exactly what that purports to do. I strongly protest against any attempt to force cultivation in this way. I ask all those engaged in any commercial enterprise to consider what is the power which is being given to the Board of Agriculture, who are so saturated with the powers they have exercised under D.O.R.A. that they think they have only to threaten to bring up a man and subject him to all the indignity of a police court and then they will be able to coerce the farmer. I have no hesitation in saying that cereals will
not be grown unless it is made profitable to the farmer to grow them, and he is not going to grow them upon the threat of the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else bringing him before the police court. The powers given to the Board of Agriculture were all right during the War, and the Agricultural Committees and everybody else did their best to get the most they could out of the land, but even then the Board of Agriculture promised to pay compensation where the farmer acted upon orders which the Board forced upon him.
What does this Bill propose? First of all, if the land is not being cultivated according to the rules of husbandry, they can fine the farmer if he does not do as they tell him. Secondly, if they think they can advise him of a system by which production can be increased by means of improvements or change in the method of cultivation or using the land, they can order the farmer to adopt their system. This power can be carried out by the Agricultural Committee, and if their order is not obeyed it can be enforced at the police court. The majority of the Agricultural Commission found that this was not a practical policy, but even if it were, is there any reason why these gentlemen who come on to the farmers' land and say, "You are to do so and so," if they make a mistake they should not pay for it? Why should the farmer suffer from orders given by the Agricultural Committee?
Lastly, the Bill gives power to determine the tenancy, and in the case of the occupying owner it gives the Board of Agriculture power to enter into possession of the land and turn out the owner, letting it to anybody else to farm it, and then the Board can walk out and leave the owner, if he wants possession to farm it again himself, and make him pay full compensation for wrongful disturbance. This provision permitting interference by the Board of Agriculture must disappear because it is unworkable, impracticable and unjust. I ask any hon. Members of this House who carry on businesses of their own, how it would be possible for them to carry on if they were constantly interefered with by committees of the County Council telling them what crops they are to grow or, if they were grocers, telling them what they were to stock and how they were to sell. Under those conditions I say there would be an end to all
business, and such interference would be intolerable.
My next point is in regard to the position between the landlord and the farmer. I have already stated that my sympathies are with the tenant farmer in matters of agriculture, because I regard him as the backbone of agriculture. I am convinced, if this Bill passes in its present form, that there will be no tenant farmers. I think, if Sir Howard Frank, the expert on the value of agricultural land, were consulted, his advice to owners would be, "Get the land into your own possession as soon as you can, farm it yourself, and then, if you do not want to keep it, sell it and put your money into some better investment." I think Sir Howard would agree with me that this part of the Bill reduces the value of all agricultural land in this country at least 20 per cent., and it will endanger the ownership of a great part of the agricultural land of this country, much of which is held on mortgage.
This Bill is a cruel injustice to those farmer occupiers who have been compelled to purchase their holdings, very often with borrowed money, and where the mortgages will be likely to be called in. Under this part of the Bill the landlord is bound to pay for wrongful disturbance a year's rent certain if he gives notice to his tenant for any reason except the four which have been specified. One is that he has been farming not according to the rules of good husbandry; two, that he has committed some breach of his lease or agreement and refuses to remedy it; three, that he is a bankrupt; four, because he has been called upon for an increased rent and has refused to go to arbitration. If a landowner thinks that his tenant is farming badly, according to this Act he can get rid of him without paying compensation. As a matter of fact, he cannot do so, and in no case, except one, have I ever known any jury to give a verdict that a farm has been farmed badly and not according to the custom of the country. In the only exception I know of where an opposite verdict was given, the man was not a farmer, but a speculator. No arbitrator will find that a man has been farming contrary to the practice of good husbandry. If a landlord gives notice to a farmer because of bad farming, it is more than likely that he will not only
have to pay one year, but more than one year, because if he goes to arbitration he will probably lose, and then he will have to pay all the costs. If it is held that it was not bad farming, then it becomes a capricious eviction, and four years' rent falls upon the landlord.
The Bill means both to good owners as well as bad living in a continual atmosphere of arbitration. If the owner gives the farmer notice there can be an arbitration. If he wishes to have a higher rent or his tenant desires a lower rent, at every two years' interval there may be a fresh arbitration. If the tenant wishes permanent repairs to be done, which are required under the first part of the section, such as the erection of silos or alterations of buildings, he can go before the agricultural committee, and the landlord can be ordered to do this work, and if he does not do it they can do it themselves and charge him with it. Lastly, the landlord is subject to a continual threat of arbitration as to alteration of rent and a threat about repairs. The tenant can go to the agricultural committee and get an order if the landlord does not do the repairs, and they can charge the landlord with them after carrying them out themselves. All through there is this continual trouble in dealing between landlord and tenant. I ask any hon. Member to say whether a state of affairs like I have described will not lead to an increased sale of agricultural properties, because people will not be content to live under such conditions and every inducement to spend money on their business or put money into the land will have disappeared.
Agriculture is a poor investment at the best of times. It is not necessary for me to say that you cannot have tenants unless you have a landlord. Supposing a tenant dies, under this Bill his executors become the tenant and the landlord will be saddled with people who never were his tenants, and he will have to pay them a year's compensation or it might be held to be capricious. Take the case of a man who has bought his own holding. If he wishes his son to have his farm, the son cannot get possession without paying anything between one and four years' compensation. I think I am quite justified in saying that the tenant farmers have not yet realised what this Bill means to them. I think the statement I made at the beginning of my observations that this
Bill, unless there is the most drastic alterations made in it, will not secure the addition of a single acre of arable land to the number of acres at present cultivated is quite justified, and it is a measure which places serious difficulties in the tenant farmer system of this country.

-8.0 P.M.

Mr. SEDDON: I have listened carefully to the whole Debate, and if there is one point as to which there has been general unanimity, it is that we are dealing with a very serious and important question. We have had a variety of opinions expressed, to one or two of which I should like to draw attention, before dealing with the more or less friendly criticisms of the Bill itself. The hon. Member for Willing-borough (Mr. W. R. Smith), in a very able speech, tried to prove too much, and in answer to an interruption, I think he certainly did injury to the argument which he advanced. He started with a very able argument in favour of the nationalisation of the land, and then, in answer to an interruption, he began to attack this Bill because it contained provisions for inspection. Everybody knows that under nationalisation, be it good or bad, there would be inspectors in even greater number than is possible under this Bill. I had the same idea as the hon. Member, until I got into conversation with a number of New Zealand farmers. They have had this Government benevolence so far as the ownership of the land is concerned, and I would not like to repeat the language which they used on this point. They were in favour of it, until they became the victims of the inspectors. The New Zealand farmers were so inspected that they got sick to death of it, and left the country. Be that as it may, this Bill will afford an opening for inspectors, but I think that evil could be modified, and, later on, I will suggest how. In his attack on the Bill, the hon. Member said it would not bring one single acre extra under the plough, and, giving his reasons for that statement, he asserted that, under the Corn Production Act, land had been brought under cultivation which was not suitable for the growth of wheat. But the hon. Member apparently forgets that there was a period in the history of this country when the land did produce wheat sufficient for
24½ millions of the population. At the present time it only produces wheat for 17½ millions. Therefore the mistake has been, not that there is not land in the country suitable for cultivation, but that people have not selected the right land for operations under the Corn Production Act.
Then we had the landlords' dirge. It was a funeral chord. The last speaker joined in it with other speakers, one of whom who sits for the Daventry Division of Northamptonshire, seemed to imagine that the only people who mattered in agriculture were the landlords and the agricultural labourers. In fact the hon. and gallant Member said that in the latter part of last century the only people who kept agriculture alive in this country were the landlord and agricultural labourer. He seemed to assume that they did so as philanthropists, and as such were entitled to high appreciation for what they have done. I am not going to say a single word against the good landlord, but I do know this, that when such things were being done, they were being done for a variety of motives. Ownership of land has more than a monetary value, especially to our old feudal families. Ownership of land gives a sense of power—a sense of custodianship for the good of the country. Many landlords during the bad periods of agriculture were prepared to lose their rent so that agriculture in this country should not be entirely destroyed. There was another motive. After all human nature being what it is, and we being a sporting race, there was some value attached to the sporting rights on the land. I am not making any complaint against the sporting instincts of other people. My only regret is that I have not had the chance of deriving the same amount of pleasure as they have been able to do, so far as sport is concerned. But undoubtedly many of them did hold on to the land because of the sporting rights as well as because of the status it gave them in the country, and in claiming that they are the only people who matter the hon. Member did a great disservice to the tenant farmer. The tenant farmers of this country as a whole are a body of men of whom any country might well be proud; whether in regard to raising stock or in the cultivation of the soil, if they have not succeeded undoubtedly it has been because of the unfair competition to which they have been subjected.

Captain FITZROY: I never ran down the tenant farmer.

Mr. SEDDON: I am open to correction; I thought the hon. and gallant Member said that the only people who mattered were the landlords and the labourers. Of course, I accept the correction.

Captain FITZROY: I said the tenant farmer was not an essential class, whereas the other two classes were essential.

Mr. SEDDON: If I have done the hon. and gallant Member an injustice, I am sorry. I accept his correction. Then we have had a criticism from the Front Opposition Bench, and I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman who indulged in it is the exponent of what remains of the Liberals who have got the tabernacle without the hosts behind it. I remember sitting on a Committee with the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland)—a Committee known as the Milner Committee, and on that Committee we had as great a variety of fiscal ideas as can be found in this House to-day. The right hon. Member persistently on that Committee, and consistently as well, with Lord Inchcape, who is well-known for his fiscal proclivities, and his interest in shipping, resisted the idea of a fixed minimum price for corn, and indeed viewed with very little favour the proposal for a fixed minimum wage. They signed a Minority Report, which came to the conclusion that there was no need to deal with agriculture either by means of a minimum wage or minimum price, because the Government had got the submarine menace well in hand. That Report was dated 1915. We all know what happened in 1917. There had been a change of Prime Minister, the submarine menace was not merely not in hand, but was very much out of hand, and the super-submarines had brought real peril to the people of this country, with the result that the recommendations of the Milner Committee were placed on the Statute Book in very great haste. My charge against the right hon. Member for Camborne and his colleagues who sit in this House is that they delayed for two years the operation of the Corn Production Act, and denied to agricultural labourers the minimum wage for that period. Had the Government, in 1915, with the time at their disposal, laid down proper Regulations such as the Government had to do in 1917, many of the difficulties which arose under the Corn
Production Act might have been avoided. So much for the critics of the Bill.
I want to say a word or two next with reference to the Bill itself. We have to admit, so far as the present position is concerned, that the War has left a legacy that we cannot avoid even if we wish to. A minimum wage cuts right across economic consistency as we understood it in pre-War days, and upsets all the Cobdenite ideas. A minimum wage has been established in the agricultural industry. It has been said, I think, on every side, that there is no desire on the part either of the farmer or of the general community that the agricultural labourer shall go back to the conditions under which he existed in pre-War days. It is now conceded, not only that the agricultural labourer was badly paid, but that his was a sweated industry. There is no place in a healthy or well-organised community for a sweated industry. no matter what it may be. Having accepted the principle of the minimum wage, and thrown to the winds all the old ideas of supply and demand, we have to ask ourselves whether farming can be made to pay without any security. I have here a copy of a speech of the Prime Minister in this House with reference to this subject. He said:
You must give the farmer confidence. … He has got to think of the years ahead, otherwise he is a loser. It is no use promising him big prices for next year and then dropping him badly for the next few years. He has got before his eyes a picture of accumulated crops across the seas, ready to be dumped down in this country the moment the War is over. He says, 'Prices will break. I shall have to cut up my pasture, and I shall be done for.' He thinks of 1880 and 1890, and what happened then." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1917, Col. 1600, Vol. XC.]
It has been stated that we cannot expect a break in prices this year or next year. That may or may not be true. We have heard about the bursting bins of Russia. I shall believe it when I see them, or see their contents. The recuperative power of people, however, is prodigious. You only need to read the history of great wars to find how soon people do recover when the will is behind desire. It is idle to say that it will take twenty years, or ten years, or five years; the fact is that recovery will take place some day. I can conceive the possibility of going back to pre-War conditions, and if we go back to pre-War conditions, not only will the minimum wage be in danger, but the em-
ployment of the agricultural labourer will go as well. We are spending a lot of money in domiciling returned soldiers upon the land. There are many agencies for training them, and I think the Government has already purchased several thousand acres for this new class of cultivators of the soil. Is it fair to the returned soldier, who is asked to go on the land, to leave the position in the future as insecure as it has been in the past? I say it is grossly unfair. The soldier who is induced to go upon the land should at least have some reasonable hope of security in the days to come. Then there is the further proposition, which has been already referred to—I strongly believe in it myself—that no nation has the elements of continuity and progress that is purely relying on an urban population. It is according to the eternal fitness of things, and is even a question of fate, that unless a nation has a strong, virile, rural population it is doomed to decay. Therefore, we have to take a larger view. I think that, notwithstanding our climate, which has not many friends in other parts of the world, we can claim that we live in an A1 country. We have had, however, a C3 population. It is one of the revelations of the War that the population of this country was declining in physique, and, if we are going to repair in the days to come that condition of affairs, I am convinced that we shall have to give careful attention to the rural population and to agriculture as a form of employment.

It being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — RUSSIA.

SOVIET TRADE DELEGATION.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I rise to move this motion on a matter of urgent importance. It is a matter of public knowledge that a Russian subject, M. Krassin, is present in London, and has had interviews with the Prime Minister to-day, and with the principal Members of the Government. Many of us desire information as to what those negotiations
mean. Questions have been asked at Question time, but they have not been answered by giving the information that is desired, not only in this House, but by the public outside, and, I think I may venture to say, by the world at large, and especially by our Allies. Possibly that has been because of the difficulty of giving a full answer to a question on so complicated a subject. The history of the present Government in Russia is not altogether favourable to this country. When the revolution occurred, it overthrew the Government of Russia under the Tsar. The Russian Government immediately became hostile to this country [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"], and very shortly afterwards entered into the peace of Brest-Litovsk, severing itself from all alliance with the Allies who were engaged in carrying on a desperate war with Germany. I will not pursue any investigation into the terms of the peace of Brest-Litovsk, but it was notoriously a most complete surrender to Germany, without consideration for the previous alliance entered into by the Russian Government and the Russian people with the Allies who were waging war against Germany at that time. The present Government of Russia is, according to the best information available in this country, not a national Government representing the Russian people. The leaders of that Government, M. Lenin and M. Trotsky, were, before the revolution occurred, resident outside Russia. Shortly before the revolution they entered Russia, and took a leading part in the revolution, with the connivance and assistance of the Imperial Government of Germany at that time.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: And of this country too.

Colonel GRETTON: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of speaking later in the Debate. The present Government of Russia has repeatedly committed acts of war against this country. I need only mention the most recent of them—the expedition across the Caspian Sea into Persian territory, and the expelling of a small post of British soldiers established in the port of Enzeli. We know beyond dispute that the Bolshevist Government in Russia has entered into an understanding with the Government of Afghanistan. That understanding was maintained during the period when the Arghans were at war with us upon the
North-West frontier of India. The present Russian Government has constantly waged war against Esthonia and the Poles, States established by the Allies in the Treaty of Paris. They have conducted activities on all their frontiers, sending expeditions disturbing the peace which it was the desire of the Allies to establish. The revolution in Russia, by which the present Government was established, has been supported by the most appalling atrocities. Making every possible allowance for the Eastern character which is inherent to some extent in the Russian people, these atrocities have exceeded all bounds and appalled the whole of the civilised world. They have not been only committed against Russian subjects, but against foreigners resident in Russia, and particularly against British subjects. The present Government in Russia has maintained an active propaganda agency in the civilised countries of the world, and we are informed on the very best authority that the one activity above all others in which they excel is their agency for the propagation of information and the principles they support which they have established at Moscow. Under the present Government appalling conditions prevail among the Russian people. There has been constant civil war. Economic conditions have reduced Russia to a state of chaos. The people in the towns are for long periods in a state of starvation, and the transport system has utterly broken down.
That being the condition of affairs we desire to know whether the British Government propose to enter into relations with a Government of violence of this kind. There is abundant precedent for refusing to establish relations with a Government which depends upon violence for its existence. We were constantly pressed during a long period to enter into friendly relations with the late Government of Mexico. We always refused, for reasons which are very well known to the Foreign Office and to a great many people outside, that the Government of Mexico was established by violence and did not represent the people and was hostile to this country. The Government refused to send representatives to Mexico or to establish treaties or trade and that Government has disappeared. The policy of abstention has been abundantly justified in that case. What other reasons which have induced the Government to-
day to enter into communication with Mr. Krassin? There has always been a somewhat strange eagerness on the part of the Prime Minister to establish relations with the present Government of Russia. We need only recall the instance of Prinkipo and the proposed conference at Stockholm. Now we have a Russian mission in this country. We are informed by the Prime Minister that the Government refused to receive the representative who was first suggested by the Bolshevik Government—M. Litvinoff. Now Mr. Krassin has arrived. Who is Mr. Krassin? Until a very recent period he was Minister of Industry acting for the Bolshevik Government, and latterly to those activities was added control of communications in Russia. Is he still a member of the Bolshevik Government, or has he come here in an independent capacity to endeavour in some unexplained way to negotiate trade relations? If he represents the Bolshevik Government no doubt he carries credentials. I asked the Prime Minister the other day what those credentials are. I obtained an answer which did not apply to that part of my question. I press on this occasion for full information as to whether Mr. Krassin represents the Government in Russia, whether he holds full credentials to act as their representative in this country, or whether he has plenary powers to conduct negotiations.
I am informed that previously to the arrival of the Russian representatives in this country negotiations took place at Copenhagen which did not proceed very smoothly. In fact, they arrived at a point when he threatened to break them off unless the British Government undertook to receive him in this country within a very short period of his arrival, and that he should have an interview with the Prime Minister and a number of his colleagues in the Government. We are informed that certain preliminary conditions have been laid down—the cessation of hostilities and the return of British prisoners. Is the cessation of hostilities only a cessation of hostilities against Great Britain herself, or does it include the cessation of hostilities against all our Allies and those States over which we have either undertaken a protectorate or for the existence of which we are responsible under the terms of the Treaty of Paris? Has the British Government insisted that as a preliminary to any negotiations with the Russian Govern-
ment full satisfaction and reparation should be afforded to British subjects or their families who have been tortured or murdered by Russians during the period of Bolshevist rule? It must not be forgotten that a representative of the British Government has been murdered. Has it been made a condition that full satisfaction should be given for the murder of the British Attaccé at Petrograd? If the Government desire trade relations with Russia I suggest for their consideration that they should taken into account a condition which it is understood has been laid down, that no British traders should be allowed to enter Russia, but that all trade relations must be carried on with representatives of the Russian Government. If that is correct, and I believe it is—

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): Would the hon and gallant Member mind repeating that?

Colonel GRETTON: I am asking the Government to inform the House whether it is a condition of trade relations with Russia that British traders shall not enter Russia, but that the trade relations shall be carried on through the representatives of the Russian Government. It is essential that if trade is to be established there should be something to trade with. What has Russia to trade with this country at the present time? Allusion has frequently been made to the bursting corn bins of Russia. Are there any bins in Russia that are bursting with grain? We know that great towns in Russia are starving. If there was an abundance of grain in Russia, why should not Russian subjects in great centres which were formerly Russian be supplied with an abundance of the necessaries of life?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Transport.

Colonel GRETTON: An hon. Member suggests that it is a question of transport. If transport is not available to convey food, which is urgently needed, to large numbers of people who have been starving for long periods in Petrograd or Moscow, how is that transport to be available for conveying the contents of the bursting corn bins of Russia to the supply of Europe? It is well known that the surplus corn in Russia in the years preceding the War was very often sold
out of Russia in spite of the needs of the Russian people, and that Russia went short of corn in order that she might supply foreign countries and have a foreign trade. What reason is there to think that Russia is producing any surplus corn at the present time? We know that a state of war has continued over a great area of Russia, and that the greatest disorganisation has continued, and that large estates have been broken up. On the land occupied by the peasants they have grown only enough for their own needs. There has been a constant drain of the Russian armed forces on the country districts to collect food and the necessaries of life. Are we going to endeavour to establish trade relations in order to get a little export of corn from Russia under a system of that kind? I do not think so. What else has Russia to give? Some minerals. I understand there are some minerals, but not a very large amount. There is some timber, but timber which is within reach of any point of export is exceedingly limited in quantity. There seems to be some flax, but not a very large quantity. What else has Russia to export? Gold. No doubt the Government have full information of the gold in the possession of the Government in Russia to-day. The Press in such communications as they have been able to publish from Russia have frequently mentioned £65,000,000. I believe that sum is grossly in excess of any amount which is at the command of the Russian Government to-day. The gold which the Russian Government holds is not all Russian gold. There is a large amount which is not Russian property, which was sent for safety to Russia when Rumania was in danger of invasion by the German Army. That gold is still in Russia. It has not been returned. I cannot think that the British Government will negotiate for payments in gold which belongs to one of our Allies, and is not the property of the Russian Government. It is notorious that Russia owes enormous trade debts and has great financial obligations to France. She has also heavy financial obligations to British subjects. Is trade in gold needed to meet those obligations to be undertaken as a result of negotiations with M. Krassin?
We need very full information upon all these subjects. There is great perturbation and great uneasiness, not only in this House, but outside, as to what is taking
place in these matters. We have heard about secret diplomacy. This is eminently a matter where the fullest information is desirable in the interests of everybody in this country, and the fullest information is also desirable to re-establish the confidence of Allied peoples, which has been rudely shaken by reports which have reached them as to what is taking place. Has full consideration been given to the views of our Allies in these negotiations which have been entered into with M. Krassin? Are they fully cognisant of everything that is taking place? Are they prepared to support the British Government in the course which it has taken? These are all matters of vast international importance, and I ask the Government to give full information to the House and the world upon these questions. Is the Government proposing to enter into negotiations with the Bolshevik Government? Have they full information as to the conditions which prevail in Russia? Are they negotiating with a national Government representing the people of Russia and supported by the Russian nation? Are they negotiating with a stable and established Government which will be able to carry out the undertakings into which it may enter? From the information which reaches this country, the Bolshevik Government is not a stable Government, and the economic conditions are producing a most widespread discontent among the Russian people which is dangerous to the stability and continued existence of the present Government. I would implore the Prime Minister and his colleagues not to commit themselves to any undertaking or to enter into any arrangements with a Government whose existence has been so disastrous to the Russian people, and thereby to assist in the prolongation of the state of chaos, misery and starvation which prevails in Russia to-day. It would be wiser and better to stay their hands. So far as any negotiations which they are able to carry out may obtain the release of British subjects who are now prisoners in Russia, there is nothing but commendation. What have they to offer for anything which they may obtain in this transaction? These are matters on which we urgently require information, and it is for the purpose of asking the Government to answer the questions which I
have put that I now move the Adjournment of the House.

Rear-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: I beg to second the Motion.
I would remind the House that during the War we were faced abroad by a propaganda which, in some cases, caused us considerable perplexity, and which was part of the German plan of campaign. When the War broke out, we were to have a rising in India and in Egypt, and trouble in Ireland. Although the German war is over, it is a curious thing that we are still faced with exactly those same problems, on which Germany depended during the War. We have trouble in India—on the Afghanistan side—trouble in Egypt and in Ireland, and those who then instigated these troubles are doing the same now. The hon. Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) referred to one particular instance which I, as a naval officer, felt deeply—the murder of Capt. Cromie, the British Naval Attaché, inside the doors of the British Embassy, at Petrograd, for which, so far as I know, neither reparation nor apology has ever been forthcoming, nor as to which has there even been any indication of the disgust and horror of the Russian people. That is one instance which we can prove. There maybe thousands of others which we cannot prove. But to receive the representatives of people who have been guilty of that, before there has been any reparation or apology, is not carrying out our traditional policy. If the present negotiations are being carried on from the economic point of view, then, as the hon. Member who has just sat down has asked, what have they to offer in exchange for our goods? At one time during the War I was able, with some pride, to obtain fairly accurate information from abroad. I still have friends, who still keep me informed of certain things.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: No.

Sir R. HALL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman apparently infers that I have been tapping other departments. I need hardly assure the House that that is not so. As far as my information goes, the goods which the Russians have to dispose of amount to something less than 80 poods of flax—a pood is 63 lbs. Then as to corn. Towards the end of 1917 a
Report was received from Russia regarding the grave situation, and stating that unless corn were sent to Russia, millions might, within the next 18 months, die of starvation. I have no reason to believe that that forecast has not been fulfilled to the hilt. Of flax, hemp, and sawn timber there is a small quantity—a few shiploads—which they are unable to move, because they have no transport. As to gold, the hon. and gallant Member for Burton stated that they are said to have £65,000,000. I would put the amount as nearer £25,000,000, of which a large proportion belongs to Roumania. Of other goods, they have the commandeered or stolen jewellery, and the national treasures in the National Museums. I hardly think that this is the time at which this nation can afford to buy national treasures to store in a museum. That is the economic side, and I fail to see any economic basis which we have for starting negotiations to trade with those people. For those reasons, I have the honour to second the Motion.

Mr. THOMAS: I have endeavoured to follow both the mover and seconder very closely, to understand what were their objections to the Government action. The hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion spoke not only with wide experience, but indicated that his knowledge tended to show that Russia had nothing to export. The mover of the Motion made the same observation, which presupposes that if Russia had something to export, and if Russia, in their opinion, was full of good things, all the other objections would be waived. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am within the recollection of the House. If other Members make different deductions from the observations, they are at liberty to do so. I repeat what I gathered was the statement of the mover and seconder. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The mover indicated that he had knowledge that timber was almost a minus quantity, that there was a little flax and some stolen gold. The seconder indicated precisely the same thing, and that they had some corn. I want to submit that, if they did not intend that, the impression which they left, in my mind, at least, was that, because there was little to trade with, it was not very advantageous to do the trade.

Colonel GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what has been said. I am sorry that any remarks which I made were not altogether clear to his mind. I did suggest reasons why negotiations should not be entered into, and also that, if those negotiations were entered into, this country was selling its birthright for a mess of pottage.

Mr. THOMAS: Whether there is an abundance of goods or not does not affect the principle in the least. Therefore all that we have heard from the Mover and the Seconder with regard to the wealth of Russia has no bearing whatever on the situation. I repeat that that was the conclusion I drew from their observations. The Seconder of the Motion raised another objection. In his judgment negotiations with Russia at a time when we had trouble with India, with Egypt and with Ireland, was very difficult and very dangerous, and he went on to suggest that those responsible for the trouble in Egypt, in India and in Ireland, were responsible for our trouble in the earlier stages of the War. The only answer to that complaint is that we ought to be entering into no negotiations with Germany. It must follow that if there is a valid objection to negotiations with Russia on the grounds mentioned, that objection is as applicable or more applicable to Germany. We may be hopelessly wrong, but the view that we take is that there never was a time when peace in the world generally was more necessary than it is now. We submit that whatever be the objections to Soviet rule or to the Bolshevists' actions in general, we cannot continue the war that is now proceeding without feeling the effects sooner or later in this country. We believe that after the experience of five years of war the one thing essential to the world's progress, and the progress of this country especially, is that instead of continuing to keep open the wound of the past War the sooner we heal it the better. We believe that every prediction with regard to Russia has been falsified so far. There is not a Member of this House who has listened to a Russian Debate, who has heard the predictions with regard to Soviet rule, who would not be compelled to admit that every time Russia was discussed Members got up with complete optimism and predicted that in a few days or a few weeks Bolshevist rule would end.
Personally, I do not believe in the methods of Soviet government, and I have never hesitated to say so, but I assert that nothing tends to show that we are consolidating Soviet government and strengthening that government than such action as we have taken in the past. We have tended rather to create in the mind of these people the belief that the world is against thm, and all experience shows that when a Government is being attacked in that way it is strengthened rather than weakened. The best evidence of that is to be found in the position of the Government in Russia at this monent. It is complained that the Prime Minister is entering into negotiations with someone who is a representative of the Soviet Government. A distinction is being drawn between trading with Russia officially and trading with Russia privately. I submit that if we are not to trade officially with Russia because of the Red Terror, there is no justification for trading with Hungary, where there is a White Terror almost as had as the Red Terror. [Interruption.] The amazing thing is that one cannot express a view without interruption. I never interrupt anyone, and I am now merely stating my case from the information that is at our disposal, and I say that the recent investigations made in Hungary, not by friends of Soviet government, but by members of our party who are strong opponents of Russia and its methods, confirm my view. They have come back to this country absolutely convinced that nothing of which the Bolsheviks have been accused is equal to the White Terror in Hungary at this moment. Why do not hon. Members get up and object to trading with Hungary?

Mr. BILLING: What, exactly, does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "the White Terror"?

Mr. THOMAS: The murder of innocent white people—white in the sense that they do not subscribe to the particular methods which the Government in power wish them to adopt. They are being murdered and outraged because they give expression to their political opinions.

Mr. BILLING: Is not that exactly what is happening in Russia?

Mr. THOMAS: The remarkable thing is that all the information one is able to obtain about Russia seems to falsify the predictions of those who have assumed to know most about it.

Mr. BILLING: Shooting workmen who will not work.

Mr. THOMAS: There are other pepole who do not work and they are never shot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I did not limit my observation; I made it very general; but I appear to have provoked the hostility of some of those who apparently think I applied it to them. I want to submit that, apart from any personal opinion, we are entitled to take a bigger view than the mere objection to the form of a particular Government. I repeat that our present methods in Russia are affecting the position in this country, because, whether this House realises it or not, there is a large mass of people in this country who feel that the continuance of the war with Russia is the continuance of a war on the common people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which war?"] One would assume that Members of the House are ignorant of the feeling that existed. They may not agree with that feeling if they like as they are entitled to their opinions, but a profound mistake is being made in ignoring that opinion.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Which war?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. THOMAS: The war that they construe by this British Government previous to these negotiations in not making peace with Russia, or in other 9.0 P.M. words, in the absence of peace, a declaration of war. Whatever may be the position of Members in this House they will be making a mistake in ignoring the opinion of great masses of the people of the country. It is for these reasons we welcome the action of the Prime Minister. We believe that the Prime Minister in this matter is not only correctly interpreting the wish of the great mass of the people, but that he is not necessarily endorsing either murder or outrage such as has been alleged against the Russian Government. Nothing could be a greater libel than to suggest that those who get up and express an opinion contrary to that held by Members of this House necessarily endorse murder or outrage of any sort or kind. If that is not the suggestion the interruptions rather implied it. I merely state that not only in the opinion of the Members of the Party for which I speak, and in the opinion of the great mass of the working classes of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I say "Yes" and
you say "No," and I submit that the best test would be to avail yourself of an early opportunity of seeing which is right. We believe that the Prime Minister is not only justified in his action, but that he ought to be encouraged in his action and that the Government in this matter are doing the best service, both to themselves and to the people of this country. I repeat that the position of Europe in general will find a reflex in this country. The second pointed out that we have got trouble in India, Egypt, and Ireland. I submit that those troubles ought to be in themselves sufficient for us to handle wilthout adding to them by bothering and interfering in the affairs of another country. I know there are some people who set up a standard of morality for other folks which they do not usually apply to themselves. So far as the Members of the Labour Party are concerned, we are quite satisfied that it is not the business of this country to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. We equally believe that the one solution for the world trouble at this moment is not to continue war, but to at once bring about peace which will set industry going and enable us at least to make some amends for the difficulties we are experiencing at this moment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: There were several remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas) with which I found myself in entire agreement. The first was that hon. Members have been very often wrong when they made prophecies with reference to the future of Russia. I am afraid that I must plead guilty to that charge, but I would suggest in self-defence that it is quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman may find himself equally guilty in the course of the next few months. I agreed entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman said with reference to other terrors in Europe. I detest just as much as he does the "White Terror" in Hungary. I protested against it often, and I should not like it to be thought that in attacking the "Red Terror" in Russia, I or my friends were for one moment condoning the atrocities which certainly have taken place in other parts of Eastern Europe. Thirdly, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the very strong feeling there is in this country generally on the Russian
question. On that account I regret very much the personal bitterness which has been dragged into this controversy. In saying that particularly I mean the attacks which have recently been made on the Prime Minister. In a humble way I ventured on many occasions during the present Parliament to disagree with the Prime Minister's Russian policy, but that does not mean that I have not realised to the full, and possibly just as much as he does with his far fuller knowledge, the great difficulties of the problem. Although I may differ from him in certain aspects of his Russian policy, I do wish to take this opportunity of protesting against the attacks upon himself, attacks which, if they were only directed against himself, he might well ignore, but attacks which are certainly having the result of greatly compromising our relations with our Ally France. During the last year and a half, whether the Prime Minister be right or wrong in his Russian policy, he has always had at heart, I think, what in my view are the two fundamental necessities of the world. In the first place the need for food and in the second place the need for peace. It seemed to me very often that this country, with no great deficiency of food, has never realised the danger of famine in the rest of the world. Just in the same way we who live in this country, the only country, Great Britain, in which not a single shot has been fired in any of the streets, sometimes fail to realise the need of peace in the rest of Europe. I believe that it is upon the realisation of these two facts that he has based his policy for the resumption of trade relations with Russia. I believe it is also with these facts in mind that our other Allies, including the French, have agreed to the resumption of these trade relations. The right hon. Gentleman only a few days ago in this House quoted at some length the details of the negotiations that have taken place on the subject, and showed quite clearly that from January onwards the French agreed with us that it was worth trying to resume trade relations between the Allies and Russia, and in any criticism that we may make of the policy of the British Government we ought to remember too that fact.
Having said so much, let me point out to him as frankly as I can, and with a full realisation of the difficulties of the problem, that there are certain facts and aspects of the question that make me
anxious. I cannot see at the present moment any evidence of the sincerity of the Bolshevik Government. Let me give my reasons. After the Allies agreed that an attempt should be made to resume trade relations with Russia negotiations were opened with the representatives of the co-operative societies and of Russia at Copenhagen. If the Bolshevik Government were really sincere, how has it come about that since that time they have abandoned the idea of negotiations with the co-operative societies and have even gone so far as to arrest the representatives whom they had sent to Copenhagen? Secondly, the original idea was trade negotiations, and in no sense political negotiations. Hon. Members who have followed the course of the negotiations at Copenhagen will not deny this fact, that throughout the negotiations M. Litvinoff put into the background the question of trade relations and did everything in his power to draw the Allies into political recognition of the Bolshevik Government. I understand he went even further, because during his stay at Copenhagen he entered into intrigues with Bolshevik agitators in Denmark with a view to stirring up revolution in Scandinavia. Thirdly, I cannot understand how, if the Bolshevik Government were really sincere in these negotiations, they delayed so long in answering the offer made by the League of Nations to send a Committee of Inquiry into Russia. Indeed, I understand they went further, and when it was suggested to them that a committee or a commission of trade experts should be sent by the Allies into Russia they refused to admit these Allied representatives. If that be so, it makes me wonder how sincere they really are.
Moreover, the House should not forget the great difficulties that stand in the way even of commercial negotiations. Let me allude to one or two of them. It seems to me that if there is corn and timber in Russia, and if we obtain a substantial supply of them for the Allied countries, we should be looked upon in Russia as the expropriators, the capitalistic expropriators, of Russian resources, at the very time when by all accounts that we hear, so far as Russia is concerned, Russia itself is very short of food supplies. If there is no corn, and very small supplies of raw material are sent to this country or the other Allies, and we accept Russian gold, whether it be right or wrong, I am
certain that there will be a general opinion here, and certainly in France, that we are receivers of stolen goods. The great objection of all is that which I now come to. I am open to conviction, but I do not see at the present time how the negotiations are going to come to a successful termination when both Governments look towards each other with ineradicable hostility. The Prime Minister has said on many occasions how much he detests the Bolshevik regime, and I do not believe that there is any member of this House who would hesitate to express his opinion if he were asked whether he wanted the Bolshevik Government to be continued or not. I believe every Member, with perhaps some exceptions, would say that he desired the destruction of a Bolshevik Government in Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"] There might be one or two exceptions [An HON. MEMBER: "Lord Robert Cecil!"] And on the other side, certainly without any exception, every member of the Bolshevik Government would say that one of the things he most desired is the destruction of the capitalistic Governments in this and in the other countries of Western Europe.
I want to put it no higher than this, that it seems to me unlikely that any stable arrangement can be made when the Governments hold such an opinion of each other. In any case, I think there are certain conditions that should be fulfilled, certain guarantees which should be given before we can enter into negotiations, detailed negotiations, official or otherwise, with any representative of the Bolshevik régime in Russia. Let me tell the House what I mean by these conditions. One is that there should be some sign on the part of the Bolshevik Government that they are prepared to adopt civilised principles and sincerely and loyally to carry out any agreement that may be made. I believe the first condition of that kind would be for the Bolshevik Government to recognise the international obligations of Russia. If they did that, they would show that they are prepared to act as every other civilised Government has always acted in the past and not to repudiate the obligations into which their nation has entered. Secondly, I think that the Bolshevik Government should offer a political amnesty to all Russians who desire to return to Russia.

Mr. MALONE: That has been done.

Sir S. HOARE: If the Prime Minister will tell me that that has been done, I shall be very glad, and if the hon. Gentleman opposite will allow me to say so, I would rather have some other evidence as to the action of the Bolshevik Government than the ipse dixit even of himself. Thirdly, I should like to see the Prime Minister take this opportunity, I believe a unique opportunity, for making a great effort to bring about peace in Eastern Europe. It is quite obvious that Russia wants to resume trade relations with the West. It is quite obvious that if that can be done with out any infringement of our principles, we wish to resume trade relations with the East. That being so, I would appeal to the Prime Minister. At the present moment he has more authority in Europe—I do not say this in any way to flatter him—than any other statesman in this country or upon the Continent, and I would ask him to bear in mind these two facts when he continues these negotiations. It seems to me that if there is to be peace in Russia, the people of Russia must have some opportunity for saying whether or not they agree with the Soviet Government, and I should like him to take this opportunity for attempting again to push upon the Bolshevik Government a proposal that has often been made before from the West, namely, that there should be a free election in Russia, that there should be a constituent assembly. Speaking for myself, I would say after that, that whatever might be the Government that Russia chose for itself, whether it be a Soviet Government, or whatever be its form, I should be perfectly prepared to recognise it, not only de facto, but de jure. Lastly, I would ask him to use this opportunity, I believe a very great opportunity, for attempting to get these great armies in Eastern Europe demobilised. I do not believe myself that you can have any renewal of trade relations with Russia on any big scale, until the Red Army is demobilised. I recognise at once, that you cannot expect the Red Army to demobilise until the Polish Army is demobilised, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to take this opportunity for seeing whether he could not get both these armies demobilised, for I am convinced that only in that way can we have peace in Europe, and only in that way,
by really having peace in Europe, can we avoid the famine that is certainly threatening the world in the next year or two. May I also humbly suggest that in any negotiations of this kind it would not only be the representatives of Great Britain that should be negotiating, but the representatives of all the Allies. If the Prime Minister is able to re-establish peace in Eastern Europe, he will have gone far to re-establish peace in the world, and he will certainly have deserved the gratitude of every British citizen.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think there is an advantage in my getting up at this stage. I have listened to the different views expressed upon this very important and grave issue, and I hope to sit down in time to enable hon. Members who taken even stronger views on both sides to express them. First of all I should like to give the House a narrative of how the present negotiations have arisen.
The decision to trade with Russia was taken in Paris, with M. Clemenceau in the Chair. He certainly is not a Bolshevik. All the Allies were represented. It was after a year or fifteen months of our efforts to produce some sort of settlement in Russia. To put it quite mildly, those efforts were not a success. Russia—the produce of Russia, the contributions of Russia to the essentials of life were seen to be as remote as ever; peace in Europe was seen to be as remote as ever, and we came to the conclusion quite unanimously that it was desirable, at any rate, to open up trading relations with Russia. We took the evidence of refugees from Russia who had been driven out of the country by the Bolsheviks. We did not act upon Bolshevik evidence—we acted upon anti-Bolshevik evidence. They were Russians who had been associated with the co-operative movement in Russia, and upon their testimony and upon the general review of the situation, we came unanimously to the conclusion that it was in the interests of the world that we should re-open trading relations with Russia. That was the first step.
Then there was the meeting in London at the end of February. There France was represented by M. Millerand; Italy was represented by Signor Nitti; and Japan was also represented. This decision was taken:
The Allies cannot enter into diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government, in
view of their past experiences, until they have arrived at the conviction that Bolshevik horrors have come to an end, and that the Government of Moscow is ready to conform its diplomatic methods to those of all civilized Governments. The British and Swiss Governments were both compelled to expel representatives of the Soviet Government from their respective countries. Commerce between Russia and the rest of Europe, which is so essential for the improvement of economic conditions, not only in Russia, but in the rest of the world, will be encouraged to the utmost degree possible, without relaxation of the attitude described above.
That was decided in February. Action had been taken upon those two Resolutions, and Russia had offered to send over a delegation to this country headed by Mr. Krassin and Mr. Litvinoff. We knew Mr. Krassin"s position in the Soviet Government. With a full knowledge of those facts, the Allies passed this Resolution at San Remo:—
The Allied representatives will be prepared to discuss with the Russian delegates the best methods of removing the obstacles and difficulties in the way of the resumption of peaceful trade relations with a desire to find a solution in the general interests of Europe.
That is, by a perfectly unanimous decision of the Allies—France, Italy, Japan and Great Britain—it was decided not merely to open up trade relations with Russia, but to open up those relations with the delegation that was then at Copenhagen, including Mr. Krassin, but excluding Mr. Litvinoff. It is upon that we are acting at the present moment. This is a decision taken by the official leaders of all the allied nations—taken after consultation with their Governments. We each were armed with authority from our respective Cabinets before we committed ourselves to this policy. It was discussed fully in Italy, in France and in Great Britain, and all the official allied leaders came to the conclusion unanimously that it was essential in the interests of the world to resume trade relations with Russia. It is a very serious thing to reverse a policy come to reluctantly, with all the evidence of dislike, shrinking, and natural aversion, and do nothing, and so go back upon a policy which you had already embarked upon. In spite of those things, these Governments came to the conclusion unanimously that it was in the interests of the scores and hundreds of millions whom they represent to resume trade relations.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Who proposed the policy, may I ask?

The PRIME MINISTER: I really do not think it very much matters, but if my hon. Friend thinks that any one of us shrinks from it, I accept full responsibility, not only of taking part, but in promoting it, and I am glad that all my colleagues agreed with me. Why did they do it? Is it not obvious to any man who looks at the facts throughout the world that there was an imperative need of it? Russia is essential to Europe. Russia is essential to the world. Has anyone been looking at the figures of the world production of wheat and raw materials, and will anyone—I mean, will anyone responsible—will anyone who can be called to account, as I could, in every court—the court of public opinion, the court of the conscience of the world and my own—will anyone, I say, with full responsibility stand up, and say that he will deny to the world, to save his own amour propre, because he is afraid of facing clamour, because he is afraid of being misinterpreted and misrepresented, and that he will bar the door of Russia against the millions who are waiting in order to get what Russia can produce? It is because we realised the peril, because we knew the limitations, because we knew the dangers, because we knew the fact that the world was running to a shortage, because it was necessary to deal with a country, which before the War produced 25 per cent. of the imported food of Europe, that steps were taken in order to restore relations with her. You may say "You cannot succeed." If you cannot, then the blame will not rest with you. But you certainly cannot do it unless you try. I am asked, "Why should we try?"
I tread with considerable diffidence upon this ground, because I do not wish to misrepresent anything that has been said. We are told that Russia has not got any grain or raw material. That is more than any hon. Member here can say, but the statement I made in this House originally I make again. There are men who say that there is a prodigious quantity of grain and raw material in Russia. I can quote a telegram which came this morning from Poland, in which the Poles say that they have come to the conclusion that "there is a considerable quantity of wheat for export abroad in the Ukraine alone."

Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed to starve Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am dealing with the challenge that there is nothing in Russia. The conclusion to which we came was upon the evidence of these anti-Bolshevist co-operative storekeepers. Is anyone here prepared to say they are wrong? The Poles have come to the same conclusion. May I say how delighted I am to see my hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Sir Reginald Hall) here to-night? He and I have co-operated together for some years. Glad I was to get his co-operation, and I am sorry to differ in the slightest degree from him now. It is the first time I have ever done it. I agree with him that there are men who say they have got nothing. On the other hand, you have men—I will not say equally well-informed, because who can say "equally informed"?—but men having the same opportunities of obtaining information, who say that there are prodigious quantities in the Ukraine, in the Kuban, and in Siberia—

Captain O'GRADY: And the "White" Russians say so—many of them.

The PRIME MINISTER: I agree, and that the peasants are storing because they cannot sell. The mere fact that Central Russia is starving is no proof at all that there is not plenty in other parts. The whole of Southern Russia has until recently been torn by rebellion. Even if there were transport, that transport has been absorbed on one side or other in the carrying of material and men for the Army. Besides, one of the objects of trade is to improve the transport. I agree that it is transport that stands in the way. There is no doubt from the evidence we have that there is grain in Russia. There is oil. There is flax. There is timber. All of these are essential commodities for this country. Equally there is no doubt that the transport is insufficient. In order to get these commodities within the reach of the people, who are starving because of the need of them, what we want is to so re-organise the trading facilities of Russia that they can bring the corn within reach of the people, and unless you begin, you will never deal with the matter.
I am told that "We must not do it because we disapprove of the Govern-
ment; we abhor the Government." Surely that is an insufficient reason! Is it really suggested that we are not to trade with a country to whose Government you object—that you are not to trade with a country that is misgoverned? When was that doctrine laid down?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: After the French Revolution.

The PRIME MINISTER: By whom?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: The English Government had nothing to do with France at the French Revolution.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am one of those who think that that is a very doubtful precedent. Supposing we had a right to do this; there was a war on between this country and France. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] War was openly declared between the two countries, and, of course, if you are at war, my hon. and gallant Friend must presume that there was a justification for that war. There we accepted full responsibility for the quarrel, and fought it right to the end. Does he, or anyone in this House, propose that war should be made on Russia—should do what we did with the French Revolutionists, put the whole of your resources and reserve of manhood of this country forward, and fight against them? If not, what is the good of provoking them? Let me pursue this line of thought. I say again, unless war has been declared between the countries, there is no precedent for declaring that you cannot trade with a country because you abhor its Government. Take the case which has been given by my hon. Friend—the Case of Mexico. We had a Chargé d'Affaires in Mexico the whole of the time to which reference has been made. Where you have anarchy, and where you have civil war, there trade is impossible. Apart from that, we would have traded with Mexico; we did, as a matter of fact, trade where and when we could. Take another case.
I am told, "You must not trade with Russia because of the atrocities of the Bolshevik Government." Have we never traded with countries which have been guilty of atrocities? What about Turkey? Were not the atrocities in Russia, bad as they were, exceeded in horror, in number, and in persistence by the atrocities perpetrated
in Turkey under Abdul Hamid against the Armenians? Violations, wholesale murder, hundred of thousands of people killed! Did we cease trading for a single hour?

Mr. BILLING: We ought to have done.

The PRIME MINISTER: What a misfortune the hon. Member was not in power! Nobody of any party in the House, to my recollection, proposed it. Our trade with Turkey was a very substantial one; our trade with that part of the world was a substantial one. But never was it suggested that we should cease trading with Turkey, or leave off trading relations, or even diplomatic relations, because of these atrocities. It is quite a new doctrine that you are responsible for the Government when you trade with its people. Were we responsible for the Czarist Government? Were we responsible for it, with its corruption, its misgovernment, its pogroms, its scores of thousands of innocent people massacred? We were not responsible for this, yet we continued our relations. Why, this country has opened up most of the cannibal trade of the world, whether in the South Seas or in Kumassie. Have we ever declined to do it because we disapproved of the habits of the population?
But it is really a new doctrine that you must approve of the habits, the customs, the government, the religion, or the manners of the people before you start trading with them. It would be very pleasant if there were no trading relations except with people just like ourselves—those who had a sane government, and who show the same wisdom and judgment. But we cannot indulge in these things; they are a luxury. They are beyond the reach of anyone except a favoured country. We must take such governments as we find them, and thank God how very happy we ourselves are here. I think we have displayed in this matter, even if we had taken the intiative, the sort of rough common-sense that leads the British people in the end to the right conclusion. They may not be able to give good reasons for it, but they are generally sound, and their instinct has led them to that conclusion. Let us look at this matter without prejudice. You cannot afford to have prejudices if you are a trading community. Certainly not. You cannot always examine the records of your customers.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: No principles!

The PRIME MINISTER: Let us look at this matter from the point of view of the realities of the situation. What is the position? It is very easy to get up in this House, and say, "Look at this horrible thing, look at this and that atrocity—are you going to grasp this tainted hand," and, with a sort of pharisaic principle, say that you must wash your hands for fear you touch a tainted customer. Russia exported 4,000,000 tons of grain before the War, and every grain of it is needed by Europe now, and in Europe I include Great Britain. Millions of tons of timber and scores of thousands of tons of flax were exported before the War—all needed by the industries of the world. When are you going to trade with Russia? Is there any man here who will get up and say, "We will never trade with Russia so long as there is a Bolshevist Government"?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: So long as a single British subject is imprisoned in Russia, you ought not to trade with them.

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend will perhaps be very shocked to hear that I have in fact said so to M. Krassin, and I hope he will not think less of himself for that, because it would be a personal disaster. I am asking, is there anybody here who is ever likely to win the confidence of the people to the extent of being chosen for the office which I now hold, or the office held by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law), who will say that he will never trade with Russia so long as there is a Bolshevist Government? All I can say is if there is anybody who says that, then it would be an act of gross folly of which either he would repent, or the country that trusted would repent.

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER - SHEE: M. Clemenceau said so.

The PRIME MINISTER: He did not say so. I know far more of M. Clemenceau than the hon. and gallant Member does. M. Clemenceau said that as long as the Bolshevist Government are guilty of the atrocities—

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: They are.

The PRIME MINISTER: Then they will not be recognised, but to say that you
cannot trade with a people whose Government is guilty of atrocities is to rule out more Governments than I care to think of. To see peace established in the world is not an easy task. I wonder whether any of my hon. Friends who ride this particular prejudice have ever put themselves into the position of those who have got to consider the whole situation. We are responsible, not merely for what is to be done to-day, but we are responsible for the future. It appals me when I think what may happen unless peace be restored in Russia.

An HON. MEMBER: Why do you not let the Poles win it?

10.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER: What is the good of talking like that? That is the sort of flighty, irresponsible talk which is responsible for more mischief than I can tell. How can you win unless you are prepared to lose? What do I mean by that? If you say you are going to crush Bolshevism because it is an evil thing, put your might into it, and put your manhood into it. We have lost hundreds of thousands of lives. Are we prepared to lose hundreds of thousands more? We have £8,000,000,000 of debt, and are we going to pile up another £3,000,000,000 or £4,000,000,000 more? If you are not prepared to do that, what is the good of talking like that? I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend's views about the Polish prospects are right. I wish I could be as sure. I think they were badly advised. I earnestly hope that my reading of the situation is wrong, but is there anyone here who will predict that I have taken the wrong view. It is easy to find quarrels. The world is bristling with them. Hand grenades are scattered all over the ground, and you have to walk carefully. The world is full of explosive matter. You have quarrels here and quarrels there. The whole trouble is that Europe is sick to death of the sacrifice of its flesh and blood, and you will not restore its health until you bring to it something like sustained order. Do not let us stir up prejudices here, quarrels there, and outrages elsewhere. Do not say, "Quarrel with that man, he is not our way of thinking; we do not approve of him." You will never get peace in the world in that way, and until you do get peace I would not guarantee—nor will any Minis-
ter holding any responsible position guarantee—stability in any land. You must first get peace in the world.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is quite obvious to anybody who has taken a responsible view of the situation that M. Krassin could not possibly be in this country carrying on negotiations of a responsible and official character if His Majesty's Government had not the assent, officially given, of the Allies whom they had previously consulted. I am quite at a loss to understand how it was we could find hon. Members addressing this House in support of what they thought must be the view of France and Italy, and condemning the Government for the action which they are supposed to have taken. I am quite sure, however, the House is indebted to the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion, because it has produced a speech from the Prime Minister which has certainly tended, even in the most obtuse minds, to clear ideas on the matter. They know now, if they did not know it before, that the action taken has been taken officially by the Government as a whole, and, further, that it is action taken with the full assent of all the Allies who have been co-operating with the Government during the past few months. I welcome very heartily what the Prime Minister has said with regard to the mistakes which have been made during the past eighteen months in our dealings with Russia. I hope profoundly that that line of policy is a thing of the past. We are not officially, and have not been officially, at war with Russia, and now we shall take every means to prove to Russia, and to onlookers throughout the world, that we are adopting no steps of a hostile character against that country, and that we have determined at least to carry out the British maxim which has operated for so many centuries, that we have no business with the internal affairs of another country. To some of the lighter passages of the Prime Minister's speech, as to the promise of the future, I do not propose to allude. There can be no doubt that the moving reason of the action of His Majesty's Government—of which we entirely approve—was that Europe had to be saved. Central Europe and the Near East are in a condition which at any moment may break out into a state of affairs with which the present condition, squalid as
it is, can bear no comparison. Hunger is carrying out its dread work as an active ally of revolution. I am not moved by the complaints which have been made as to the lack of food or other raw materials in Russia at the present moment, nor is my view affected by the optimistic opinion of the Prime Minister as to the grain or other raw material that can be got. What we have to do is to give an incentive to Russia as a whole to get to work. It is vital, as the Prime Minister well said, not only to Russia but to the whole of Europe, and through Europe to the world, that Russia should once again, and as speedily as possible, take her part in the production of the raw materials that are so necessary to the very existence of Europe. You cannot have that you are blockading one part of her shores, and sending expeditions to other parts of Russian territory. The only true way is to start trading in the necessities of life.
Allusion has been made to the deaths of British officials, but I am certain that it would be little consolation to them to know that an attempt was made to avenge their deaths by the starvation of tens of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people throughout Europe. As to what was said by an hon. Member with regard to what happened in the French Revolution, I think he is entirely wrong. Pitt, who was then Prime Minister, steadily refused to budge one inch, notwithstanding the eloquent appeals of Burke and those who worked with him, or to take any action that interfered in the slightest degree with our trade with France, even in the throes of the worst times of the revolution. It was only, as the Prime Minister properly said, when war broke out that trade ceased. We are at last, and, in my judgment, only too slowly, acting in accordance with British precedent in dealing with these matters affecting other nations than ourselves. The only way in which you can get Europe going once again is to recognise the facts of the situation, horrible and terrible as they are. I and those who act with me cordially welcome the decision to which the Prime Minister has come, and we wish well to this first step towards bringing about relations with Russia which will create a condition of things there in which Bolshevism will become impossible in the future. The only way in which that can be done is to make
the channels of trade free, and then transport internally will begin to operate far more easily. If this beginning is carried through in a sound, reasonable and common-sense spirit, I have the brightest hope that the day is not so far distant as some of us thought not very long ago, when peace, economic and political, will be restored throughout the Near East.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: The Prime Minister asked whether there was anyone in a responsible position in thin House who would allege that we ought not to trade with the Bolshevik Government.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not my proposition. The question I put was: Is there anyone in the House who would say you should never trade with the Bolshevik Government, however long they remain in Russia.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I do not think there is much difference between the two. The right hon. Gentleman went on to define "responsible person" as a person likely to occupy the position he is occupying himself, with such great renown, if I may say so. Of course, there are very few of those persons in the House at present. There is one person, at any rate, who having no aspirations in that direction, can say honestly that as representative of a certain district in this country, he supports the view that we ought not to trade with the Bolshevik Government at all. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman, and mentioned that M. Clemenceau had held those views and I said I would quote what M. Clemenceau had said. This is from a report made public in the United States of the conference held at M. Pichon's room at the Quai d'Orsai.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Bullitt!

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: The Bullitt report, but it is an official secret report published by the United States Senate. In discussing this question whether they should negotiate with the Bolsheviks or not, M. Clemenceau said:
When listening to the document presented by President Wilson that morning he had been struck by the cleverness with which the Bolshevists were attempting to lay a trap for the Allies. When the Bolsheviks first came into power a breach was made with the capitalist Government on questions of
principle, but now they offered funds and concessions as a basis for treating with them. He need not say how valueless their promises were, but if they were listened to the Bolshevists would go back to their people and say: 'We offered them great principles of justice, and the Allies would have nothing to do with us. Now we offer money and they are ready to make peace.'

Mr. RAFFAN: What is the date of that?

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 21st January last year. I am only quoting an expression of opinion of M. Clemenceau at that time that if you were to negotiate or trade with them they would only say "It is only when you have got gold."
Now we offer money and they are ready to make peace.
If we trade with them, or the Russians offer us money, gold or platinum, or whatever it is, we are ready to make peace. That was the gist of his argument, and he said that was a trap. I maintain that M. Clemenceau was perfectly right, although he bowed to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman and agreed to some negotiations taking place. That is exactly the case to-day. The Bolsheviks are at this very moment making use of this reception of M. Krassin as a splendid propaganda, saying: "We offered them gold and platinum, and now they are ready to talk to us." Then, as a matter of fact, we have the case of Sweden, which tried to trade with them the other day, and this throws another curious sidelight on trading with the Russians. The Swedish people tried to open up trade negotiations and sent them certain goods, and in return they were to get a shipload of copper. But the shipload of copper was held up by the sailors of Kronstadt something like four months ago, and it is still held up, and the Swedes have not got their copper. The beauty of Bolshevism is that there is no law and no order. The Central Moscow Government may give an order, but the sailors of Prinkipo say they will not do it, like the National Union of Railwaymen in Ireland or the dockers somewhere else. Everyone is a law to himself. Therefore how are you going to trade with them? A great deal has been said to-night as to what you are going to get out of Russia, and the right hon. Gentle-
man with his usual eloquence talked, not about bulging corn bins, but about Russia having exported 25 per cent. of the food of Europe before the War. How are we going to get 25 per cent. of the food of Europe from Russia in her present condition? It is impossible. Every observer who comes from Russia says that the Russians are short of food. Therefore how on earth can we possibly get enormous quantities of food from the Russians? If we did, it would be unfair to the Russian people, who are not all Bolsheviks. Take the question of gold. I understand that last week large quantities of gold and platinum were insured at Lloyd's, intended for M. Krassin in this country, and word went round at Lloyd's that the people who were doing the insurance were the British Government. If anyone is to answer for the Government in addition to the Prime Minister, will he say whether the British Government have been insuring this gold and platinum? Perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to tell us?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is not a word of truth in it.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: At any rate, there are gold and platinum coming over for M. Krassin, and the rumour went round Lloyd's that it was the British Government who are insuring it. Even if it was not insured by the British Government it is coming over to this country for the purpose, I suppose, of establishing trade credits. I do not want to develop at greater length the argument that the gold at present held by Russia is not the property of the Russian Government. I merely state the fact. Then I come to the question, What is the Bolshevik Government? They are the de facto Government of Russia at the present time. That is admitted; but they are a Government, in the first place, who have got into power by the committal of an immense amount of crime in that country. They were not elected by the people. They have never been elected in any constitutional or democratic way. They are purely usurpers who have seized the power in Russia and are in the saddle at the present time; but they are not the honest constitutional Government of Russia. Finally, they have been guilty of the most atrocious crimes ever committed by any Government in any country, measured by the quantity of people whom they have slaughtered and starved. That
being the case, I fail to see how we can rightfully trade with Russia, either on the ground that we are going to get a great deal out of Russia in the way of food or raw materials or how we can receive from them money which we know is not the property of the people who are sending it. I can understand, possibly, that there may be an argument that if we do not get the gold the Germans will. That may be a strong argument, but I would rather see the Germans, or some other inferior race, handle this money, which is, in spite of the gibes of the Prime Minister, in the opinion of many millions of people in this country, money which has been stolen, and therefore ought not to be handled by a responsible, honest Government in this country. The Prime Minister said that there is no reason why we should not negotiate with this Government, because we have not approved of many others. There are, no doubt, many Governments with which we are carrying on friendly relations in trade, with which Governments we are not in complete agreement. At the same time it is a very different thing from a government like the Bolshevik Government which, at this moment, is working against us all over the world, in our own country, in Ireland, in Egypt, in Persia. Even in this morning's papers we see that the chief of the Bolsheviks, Lenin, has assured the Indian revolutionaries that the whole of the Russian proletariat were watching with sympathy their attempt to establish a free India.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: So are we.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in favour of the commissars.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, a free India. So were you when you passed the Act.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Then also we saw where there has been a love feast in Moscow, between some of the Bolshevik emissaries from this country, headed by Mr. Robert Williams, in which M. Lesovski, or some such name, had wished them God speed, and hoped that they would get up a revolution in this country as soon as possible, so as to unite them with the Russian proletariat. Those are deliberate proofs that the Russian Government, with whom we are negotiating, with whom the Prime Minister thinks it right to negotiate on behalf of the
Government, are engaged at the present moment in trying to subvert our rule throughout the world. There is no object whatever in negotiating with those people. When he talks about peace, how does it promote peace, to negotiate with these people and put them on the same basis as ourselves, put them on the same pedestal, and say that they are a Government with whom we can negotiate? The best way to deal with the Bolshevik Government is to establish a cordon sanitaire round Russia which you would establish against a country that was affected with cholera, typhus, or some terrible disease which you wanted to keep out of your country. The best way to deal with Russia is to leave it entirely alone. A competent observer who has been talking to me to-day, who has come all the way through from Trans-Siberia, and spent several weeks in Russia, tells me that there is not the faintest doubt that the Bolshevik Government is within a very few months going to collapse absolutely, if left alone. The more we help them in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, the more we are bolstering up their Government. The Bolshevik Government is based on a system antagonistic to the whole scheme of civilisation throughout the world. They have succeeded in bringing their own country into an abyss of misery and chaos. If we allow them to spread their propaganda in this country, we shall only be assisting them in their attempt to destroy our civilisation, and if this country goes the whole of the world goes, because every other country will follow us. Of course, the Prime Minister does not mind a back bencher objecting to his action. He may get a great many Member to support him, but I for one, hope that many Members of this House will refuse absolutely to support him in the attitude which he has taken.

Captain O'GRADY: I think the House generally will conclude, from the attitude of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Archer-Shee), that he is not in his usually temperate mood. At the moment he is, like many others, influenced by a particular prejudice in the discussion of the relations between Russia and the rest of the world. I wish the Debate had concluded with the Prime Minister's speech. I urge the House to appreciate one point—that at the moment very delicate negotiations are going on
between representatives of the Soviet Government and representatives of the Entente Powers. Whatever may be our opinions upon the issue at stake, I think those negotiations ought to be given an opportunity to succeed. I have heard speeches to-night that seemed to me to be rather brutal. Because there is a Government in Russia with which some hon. Members do not agree, presumably the whole Russian people are to submit to a system of pressure involving death, ruin, and famine. That is not the old British characteristic at all. Russians themselves have declared that famine and pestilence have been largely the result of our blockade of Russia. Take a single instance. I do not suppose you could collect a basketful of surgical instruments in Russia. I remember the first wounded prisoner who came out of Russia. He was a young Tommy from our own Army. They had had to cut his eye out with a razor, and without an anâsthetic. I cite that case, to show what has been the effect of our blockade. As a matter of fact, the first money that was got out of Russia was solely for the purchase of drugs. It is said over and over again—and I think the "White" Russians will admit it—that the blockade is largely responsible for the state of starvation which now exists in Russia.
I am glad that the Prime Minister has taken the view he has indicated to-night. I want to emphasise what he said, in one way. He asked whether there was any responsible man in this House who had taken the view that we ought not to trade with Russia, because of certain contingencies. As far as I know the commercial men of this country have, with the working classes, quite made up their minds that, whatever may have happened in the past with regard to Russia, the question of commercial relationships being resumed with Russia should be undertaken now openly and freely. I throw out this challenge. I say that if I were to address the Chambers of Commerce of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham or Glasgow, I should get a vote in favour of the action that the Government are now taking. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have been approached by gentlemen who are great men in the business life of this country. They belong to great federations of employers. One of them has
£400,000,000 of capital behind it, and another has a much greater amount. They are not bothering about the gold, and they are prepared to take the risk if the whole of the commercial relationships are thrown open freely and widely, without the intervention of the co-operative system.
I thought the decision of the Supreme Council at Paris in January of this year was a mistake, but I think if His Majesty's Government would take the commercial men of this country into their confidence, we should see a resumption of commercial relations with Russia. It is well known, for instance, that mills in Belfast are lying idle for want of flax, that spindles are being stopped, and that many people are either out of work or on short time. I was in Leeds the other week, and it is a great centre for the manufacture of boots. In many of the factories the workers are on short time. Many are receiving unemployment benefit from their trade unions, and if a Bill before this House be carried they will receive unemployment benefit from the State. It is a well-known fact that there is a tremendous quantity of hides in Russia, and yet working-class families are paying extortionate prices for boots, and then comes the cry for increased wages. Why can we not connect those hides in Russia with Leeds, and thus cheapen the price of boots? There are 113,000,000 people in Soviet Russia who want boots, and that would keep the boot factories going for the next five years day and night. If the commercial man be not a politician, then let there be no doubt about this question of the resumption of commercial relations.
I desire to controvert two or three statements made with regard to M. Litvinoff. It was said that he drifted off from the negotiations with regard to the release and repatriation of British prisoners and British civilians into trade propositions. I do not know that he did that during the time I was with him, and certainly he did not do it at the time to which the hon. Member refers, which was February of this year. With regard to the question of stirring up strife in Scandinavia, I have heard that statement over and over again, and I submit to my hon. Friends that there is not an atom of truth it in. It is perfectly true that in Copenhagen and Denmark reactionary newspapers were careful every day to publish state-
ments that M. Litvinoff was using his mission to stir up strife, but proof is wanting. I suggest that those who make those statements should go to the Press Department of the Danish Foreign Office, where they ought to know. I heard one of the officials there state that there was absolutely no truth in the statement that M. Litvinoff was stirring up strife in Scandinavian countries.
With regard to the interference of the Bolshevik Government with the trade Commission, that point has been made before. What they did was as I understand, when a certain mission was being sent out, to object to certain individuals just as objections were raised to members of the Co-operative Mission. I suggest to the House that a de facto Government has a perfect right to pass an opinion on a body that may be selected for the purpose of going into internal Russia, and making investigations. The Prime Minister took very strong exception to the delegation appointed by the Soviet Government to negotiate the resumption of commerce between Russia and Europe. When we speak about the Bolshevik Government, these facts ought to be borne in mind. I do not agree with the Bolshevik political system or the Bolshevik system of communism, but, as things go on developing in Russia, you will have these systems modified. As a matter of fact, in March this year they had something like a Coalition Government in Russia. There were two Socialist Revolutionaries in the Government, in other words, there were two of the party of the late Kerensky and also one of the Mensheviks. I have been informed on very good authority that the ballot will be subsequently introduced.
We forget the fact that during all these months Soviet Russia has been engaged in suppressing what they consider to be a counter-revolutionary movement, and to expect them to undertake a reformation of their political system while engaged in those operations is to expect from them what we expect from nobody else. If I know the Russians at all correctly, they want their country developed. I feel sure that they would welcome in Russia foreign capital, foreign brains, and foreign energy. If the country is to be developed, why do we talk about this paltry sum of gold? Some say it is £20,000,000, and others £25,000,000. Sup-
pose we put it at £500,000,000, what is it against the tremendous resources of that great country? I think that we are peddling when we talk about "tainted gold." Some hon. Members want to earmark £500,000 as belonging to Roumania, and another £300,000 as belonging to Serbia.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Hear, hear—our allies.

Captain O'GRADY: Anyone who knows anything about Russia knows that her financial obligations could be met by the development of her resources within the next five years. I was talking to a Russian the other day, and I suggested ten years, but he said that they could do it in five if there were anything like order restored. I beg the House, apart from these questions, to appreciate the point put by the Prime Minister—that you cannot economically lock up half Europe. I expect food prices to depreciate. I feel convinced that, if these negotiations between the representatives of the Entente Powers and Soviet Russia come to a speedy conclusion, we shall get the surplus grain that they have there.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: They have not got any.

Captain O'GRADY: There is no doubt that they have. There are hundreds of Russians in this country who know the circumstances well, and who will agree that there is a considerable quantity of grain which can be exported from Russia. I am very glad the Prime Minister has made the statement heard to-night, and I hope that he will conclude his negotiations speedily, and let us see things come along that will help to right the world politically and economically.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: The Prime Minister invited me to say a word in answer to what he was saying, but he is not here now to listen. He asked if we would ever have refused to treat with Turkey, who was guilty of all these massacres in the case of Armenia, but I venture to think that even the Prime Minister would never have come to this House at any time of so-called peace with Turkey and suggested that we should suddenly open up for the first time after the War trade relations with Turkey while Turkey was laying hands on British subjects in various parts of the Turkish Empire and throwing them into prison.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would have come here and suggested that we should open up trading negotiations with Turkey if Turkey had repudiated a debt which she owed to us of some five, six, or seven hundred millions. Therefore, I do not think these arguments are germane, nor do I think his references to the cannibals who were also trusted at different times have very much weight. I think most hon. Members will deplore the fact that he should have coupled with the cannibals and the Bolsheviks the Government of the Czar, because whatever may be thought of the methods of Government in Russia, we ought never to forget that although the Czar may have been surrounded by traitors, he was true to this country to the very end. He is dead now, and I do not think there is anyone in the House who would ever dare to suggest that the Czar would not have seen the obligation of the debt to this country through or that he would have repudiated that debt, and for that reason I think it is rather deplorable that we should have a slur cast upon those who were allies of ours at the time the Czar was murdered.
The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the Prime Minister made a great deal of play out of the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) and the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool (Sir R. Hall) had referred to the fact that there was no trade which could be speedily opened up with Russia. I am informed by the most intelligent Russian business men, not with any pleasure but in despair, that their transport system alone makes it impossible suddenly to give any great relief to the parts of Europe which are suffering so much from hunger. It was made a definite point by the right hon. Member for Derby that the reason why my hon. and gallant Friends did not want to have this arrangement made was because there were no goods of this description in Russia to sell. I think that was an unfair argument, for the simple reason that my hon. and gallant Friends, in advancing that point, in no way tried to make out that they thought the change of policy was right. What they did want to point out was that this Conference cannot have been really called into being in order to discuss a trade which cannot come into operation. There must have
been some further ulterior reasons other than trade, and I think that is rapidly becoming more and more clear, that Mr. Krassin is no longer a co-operator but comes here as a representative and a member of the Bolshevik Government to talk on very much wider questions of policy. The Prime Minister's principal argument—and I am sure the Secretary of State for India (Mr. Montagu) will be interested in this—with regard to the bulging corn mills of Russia was the fact that he learned there was a great amount of corn in the Ukraine. Is it very difficult to get into touch with the Ukraine without soiling our hands by having conversations with Bolsheviks, who are invading our territory and throwing our people into prison?
The right hon. Member for Derby also told us that he wants to have peace, and the Prime Minister wants to have peace. Is it not a fact that peace is going to be rendered more difficult if we are going to fill the coffers of the Bolshevist Government for them to carry on a military policy against all bordering States and their own country? The right hon. Member for Derby told us he disapproves of the White murders in Austria, and he says that in that case trade ought to stop. He also, I believe, is one of those who disapproves of the murders in Bolshevik Russia, but nevertheless thinks we ought to open up trading relations with the Bolshevist people. Such an inconsistency, I should imagine, even the Labour party would find it very difficult to make plain. The Prime Minister asked us, "Do not you want peace?" and I think it is most important that we should consider the Prime Minister's views last year. He asked us just now, "Will any man bar the door to Russia?" I think really when the Prime Minister says, "Will you for all time prevent any goods coming from Russia so long as it is Bolshevik?" that was trying to get away from the true question we are discussing here. There are a good many people in this country who feel strongly that, so long as the Bolshevik Government carries on the same methods as it is indulging in at present, so long should we refuse to have any dealing with it. If the Bolshevik Government were to abandon its methods and show that we could trust its word for one short hour, they would say, "Whatever the Government of Russia, let
us do everything in our power with regard to this particular question." But the Prime Minister himself made this statement in this House on 16th April last year. He said:
The Bolshevik Government has committed against Allied subjects great crimes which made it impossible to recognise it, even if it were a civilised Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1919, Col. 2940, Vol. 114.]
What has happened to change the Prime Minister's view in this very short space of time? When he asks us what responsible man would be guilty of saying he would not recognise the Bolshevik Government, I say there was a responsible man who, on 16th April of last year, told this House with such emphasis that that was his view. M. Krassin is the representative of that same Bolshevik Government. Are the Bolsheviks more desirable to-day? Is there any evidence of a change of heart? I am prepared to say there is not the same evidence coming through to-day that they are murdering bishops, for the simple reason that nearly all the bishops have been murdered. I am convinced that we are never likely again to hear of the tremendous onslaught on and murders of the middle classes which were disproved by the Labour party, although they were very reticent when the nobility were being wiped out But for all that there is no apparent change of heart amongst the Bolshevik Government at the present time, and I say that there are a great number of people in this country who would sooner see our country poor than have our honour affected by opening up negotiations with a Government which is guilty of the atrocities of the Bolshevik Government.

Mr. MILLS: No one in the commercial world!

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: My hon. Friend has been talking to some of the people who are known as profiteers. I say it is better for this country to remain poor—if it is a question of rich and poor—rather than profiteer with what there can be no doubt is stolen goods in the hands of the Russian Government! When people get up here and lightly say, "Surely you are not going to suggest that this or that should be done." Well, the hon. Gentleman who spoke last believes that the money that Russia has—that she has been taking care of—has been taken from Rumania, Serbia, and other of our Allies.
Can anyone conceive a policy more fatal to our friendship with these than that it should be bruited abroad that we here had taken this gold in order that we might be the first to start trade with Russia? I remember the Debate on the Bullitt incident in this House. There never was an occasion of such extraordinary unanimity against this talking with Bolsheviks. No Division was necessary, because the Home Secretary promised that he would go straight away and telegraph to the Prime Minister. The result of that was that we had the speech to which I have already referred a few days later. The Prime Minister said to-day: "It is a very-serious thing to reverse the policy which has been reluctantly come to." Then he pointed out that he and his friends had come to this policy unanimously. Who framed this policy? And who does not know that all our Allies were against this policy? But the wonderful personality of our Prime Minister dominated the situation, and after making many efforts and being repudiated by the Allies in this connection, he at last managed to convince his colleagues. But that does not alter the fact that this House was never consulted. There was such an extraordinary unanimity in this House as to this secret diplomacy—I am perfectly certain that the Labour Party are with me—that this matter ought not to have gone forward without an expression of the opinion of this House. For that reason, I say that when the Prime Minister says it is a serious thing to reverse policy, that it is time he was taught that it is a serious thing to reverse the policy of this House—the grand inquest of the nation—who alone ought to be competent to decide such a question. The Prime Minister made no reference whatever to one side of this question. It has, perhaps, influenced opinion in the country more than anything else, that is the question of the prisoners. In this connection would it not have been better for the Prime Minister to have said that he would have no part or lot or talk with M. Krassin until the Bolshevists had proved that they were withdrawing from Persia, and until they had released every British subject, naval, military, or civilian—not until then would he be prepared to meet the representative of the Bolshevist
Government? On the very day Lord Curzon went to meet M. Krassin in this country, I received information that one of my greatest friends, a gallant officer in the Navy, and a number of his colleagues, were taken prisoners in Baku. [An HON. MEMBER: "What were they doing there?"] They were doing the duty of their country. It is not consistent with the dignity and honour of this country while the Bolsheviks are seizing the subjects of this country under conditions which we know are terrible, that we should open any conversations whatever. It should be made clear that the power of the British Empire should be fully recognised before conversations take place with a despotic military tyranny such as the Bolshevik Government is in Russia.

Mr. TILLETT: I want to bring the House back to the attitude taken up by the Prime Minister. We have to make up our minds whether this is to be a vendetta or not. If the same views could have been uttered at the Armistice or before it, then every Member of this House would have given highly moral reasons against any peace whatever with Germany, but in the interests of humanity we did not do this. I have been charging my mind to understand what hon. Members really desire. Do they wish to restore the régime of the Czar and of the Russian aristocracy and of the Russian capitalists? Do they wish that system restored as a preliminary to allowing overtures with Russia? All of us regret the atrocities of the Russian people and the Soviet Government, but we have to lift our minds from Lenin, Trotsky, Krassin, and Litvinoff. We have to take Russia herself and her people, and we have to take our responsibilities in hand and realise that we are in the aftermath of war. As a matter of fact, there have been more men, women, and children destroyed since the Armistice than there were during the whole of the War. We must have clean hands. Does anyone remember Sir Walter Raleigh, or the Pilgrim Fathers, or the settlers in Australia? Does anyone realise how we built up our commerce? Does anyone appreciate the profiteer during the War? We have got to come down to an attitude of reason. We want to stop
murder. The Soviet Government can say: "The world is against us," that a community can always be a horror and a bleeding martyr. They can say: "We are opposed by all civilized nations, and Britain in particular." I trust that this House will reflect a common-sense view, and realise that the workers in Russia have no quarrel with us and we have no quarrel with Russia; and remember that the commercial men of this country will have no quarrel with Russia when they can make a profit out of them.

Mr. BILLING: I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the most priceless piece of special pleading I have ever heard in this House. No doubt many hon. Members would like to dissociate themselves from what the Prime Minister has said. I thought of what happened six months ago, when exactly the same sentiments were howled down, which this House cheered to the echo when they fell from the lips of the Prime Minister, and when the right hon. Gentleman thought he was losing the confidence of the House he reduced his speech to an element of laughter and applause—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can we have any information as to the business to be taken to-morrow and Wednesday?

Lord EDMOND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury).: We shall have to take the Agriculture Bill on Wednesday, and the Government hope that the Second Reading may be obtained by Eight o'clock. The Government of Ireland Bill will, therefore, have to be postponed till next week. Tomorrow the first part of the sitting will be devoted to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes) on the question of war wealth, and the Government hope that time may afterwards be found for the Second Reading of the Gas Regulation Bill.

Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the peculiar importance of the Agriculture Bill will the Government decide whether they are willing to let it go to a Committee of the Whole House or will it be sent to Standing Committee upstairs?

Lord E. TALBOT: The Government propose to send it to a Committee upstairs.

Mr. BILLING: Will the Noble Lord, considering the importance of the Measure and the shortness of the time which Members have had for discussion on the Second Reading, and, having regard to the fact that the only possibility of making any material alteration in the Bill will be on the Committee stage, say whether the Government are prepared to take the opinion of the House before they send it upstairs?

Lord E. TALBOT: The Government cannot help taking the opinion of the House, but will oppose any Motion to send it to a Committee of the Whole House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the Gas Bill be finished to-morrow, is it the intention of the Government to take the Firearms Bill or any other Bill?

Lord E. TALBOT: If there be time after the Gas Bill, the Government propose to take the Tithe Rent Charge Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o'clock.